MOTI RAM MEHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated July 1957, calling upon the petitioners to refund Rs. 570 each on the ground that an overpayment of compensation had been made to them.

(2.) PETITIONERS are three brothers, who claim that they along with their fourth brother owned some property in Lahore. In the year 1938 a suit for partition of their property was filed and a final decree for partition was passed by the commercial Sub-Judge Lahore on November 14, 1941. It is alleged in the petition that the parties thereafter dealt with their properties separately. This allegations has been denied in the affidavit filed on behalf on the respondents. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that there was no separation amongst the petitioners and they together were allotted one separate share and enjoyed it jointly. By order dated 26-2-1951 the Claims Officer Simla verified the claim which had been filed by Motiram Mehra claiming Rs. 42,500 on account of 1/4th share belonging to him and his two brothers. The claim was verified at Rs. 32,500 and later increased by the Claims Commissioner Delhi to Rs. 3,700. It is further alleged in the petition that on 16/19-6-1953 the petitioner, Motiram filed an application for compensation under the Displaced Persons (compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (No. 44 of 1954)and among other things it was stated in column 3 that the claims was being made on behalf of self and two brothers. The office of respondent No. 3 considered the compensation application of the petitioner and the then Settlement Officer wrote a note suggesting that the partition between the brothers he accepted. To the same effect was the note of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner dated 13-12-1954. The then Regional Settlement Commissioner agreed with the above two notes by his order, dated december 20, 1954. After finalisation by the Accounts Branch the Regional settlement Commissioner, on December 31 pensation of Rs. 2,470 each. Petitioner no. 1 received were directed to file separate applications which they did and on 30-3-1955, both of them were paid compensation on the same scale as petitioner no. 1. The petitioners were paid final compensation of Rs. 1,504 each on 23-41957. Thereafter the petitioners were informed that they had Been overpaid and by letter, dated July 1957 respondent No. 3 called upon the petitioners to refund rs. 570 each. The petitioners raised objection to the authority of respondent No. 3 to review the order and claim refund. By letter, dated 17th August 1956, the Assistant settlement Commissioner called upon the petitioners to produce documentary evidence support to the disruption of the joint Hindu family. In response to the said notice affidavit of Sita Ram Mehra dated September 11,1957 was filed. On december 27, 1957, the Regional Settlement Commissioner directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 579 each and threatened coercive process for recovery thereof in case of default. The defence of the respondents as set out in the reply affidavit is that-

(3.) AT this stage I would like to point out that the affidavit on behalf of the respondents has not been properly verified. The verification must state the particular paragraphs which are true to the deponent's knowledge and those which are true to his information. Nothing much, however, turns on the verification in the present case since the only disputed point is regarding the constructions of S. 24 of the said Act. The matter came up for hearing before Shamsher Bahadur J. , on May 7 1964 and though the point regarding denial of opportunity of be heard was conceded by the respondents Mr. D. K. Kapur the learned counsel for the petitioners anted to argue that the Settlement the authorities had no jurisdiction to all to deal with the matter, The case, was therefore, adjourned to enable the respondent to file further affidavit dealing with the other mates raised in the petition. That is how the matter came up before me for disposal.