LAWS(P&H)-1974-5-12

GOBIND DEV MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 22, 1974
GOBIND DEV MEHTA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are displaced persons from West Pakistan where they held urban and rural property. According to the Jamabandi for the year 1944-45, they had 42 kanals of urban agricultural land, residential house and three shops within the municipal limits of Multan City, There is no dispute regarding rural property left by them because in lieu of that property, they were allotted agricultural land in village Kharkhara, tehsil and district Hissar on 26th of August, 1949. In February. 1951, they filed a claim for Rs. 60,000/- in respect of the urban immovable property left by them. At that time, the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act) held the field. However, the authorities did not take any action for verification of the claim of the appellants in spite of various reminders. Vide his letter dated 29th of July, 1953 (Annexure C), the Officer in-charge Records. Ministry of Rehabilitation, Metcalph House. Delhi, informed them that their claim could not be verified as the 1950 Act was no longer in force, The appellants then filed an application through the District Relief and Rehabilitation Officer/district Magistrate. Bahraich, to the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Claims Wing) Metcalph House, New Delhi, praving therein that their claim for urban property should be verified. It is alleged that the appellants remained under the impression that this application filed by them would receive sympathetic consideration of the authorities and their claim would be verified. No such action was, however, taken by the authorities concerned. The 1950 Act expired on May 17, 1953. For the claims which could not be verified under the 1950 Act, the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954. (hereinafter referred to as the 'supplementary Act'1 was passed on March 18, 1954. Section 4 of this Act provided that a Settlement Officer shall have jurisdiction to decide such claims or such classes of claims as may by general or special order, be transferred to him by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Section 5 conferred revisional powers on the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

(2.) THE appellants approached the Punjab Lands Claims Department praying that their claim application should be decided, but their prayer was not acceded to. The Settlement Officer/managing Officer. Urban Section, Land Claims Office, Jullundur, merely reported that at the time of allotment of rural land to the appellants no area was allotted to them in lieu of the property by by them in village Taraf Ravi, Hadbast No. 101. Tehsil and District Multan, and as such, no area was deductible from their allotment. With these observations, the application submitted by them was filed. This fact bears repetition that there was no question of any deduction to be made from the allotment of rural land to the appellants. They were merely crying for getting compensation in respect of urban property left by them.

(3.) IN November, 1963, the Government of India had issued a Press Note in which it was stated that the claims which had been filed in time containing the required Particulars but which could not be verified on account of reasons other than the default of the claimants would be verified provided a request in writing to that effect had been made prior to the expiry of the 1950 Act. This Press Note shows that there was no intention on the part of the Central Government to deny the displaced persons their legal rights to get their claims verified for Purposes of receiving compensation, provided they had made applications in time. On December 26, 1963, the appellants filed vet another application for setting their claim verified. It was returned by the Settlement Officer (Urban) with the endorsement dated 14th January, 1964, with the cryptic remark that no allotment could be made at that time. The appellants then sent several reminders to the Rehabilitation authorities repeating their prayer for the verification of their claim. They also approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner through a Member of Parliament. Shri Rama Reddy, who received a reply from the Chief Settlement Commissioner in which it was admitted that a Press Note had been issued in November. 1963 prescribing the last date for submitting applications for condonation of delay in filing compensation application and applications for rehabilitation grants. It was also admitted that in response to this Press Note, over 7000 applications were received by this office for condonation of delay in filing rehabilitation grant applications and after a careful consideration, a decision was taken that the delay should not be condoned and the applications were consequently filed. The appellants filed Civil Writ No. 3343 of 1971 (Punj and Har) in this Court challenging the action of the authorities concerned in refusing to verify their claim. This petition was dismissed b" a learned Judge of this Court on 27-11-1972. They have come UP in appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent