SADA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He filed a claim before the Rehabilitation authorities at Jullundur for the allotment of land in lieu of the land left by him in West Pakistan. He was allotted 15.3-3/4 standard acres of land in village Mohammadpur Sottar, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar. The Managing Officer made a reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of the propietary rights conferred on the petitioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, however, rejected the reference and sent it back to the Managing Officer asking him to again scrutinise form No. VI produced by the petitioner. The Managing Officer made a thorough enquiry and again made a reference on October 5, 1960, reporting that form No. VI was genuine and the petitioner was holding an excess area to the extent of 0.4-3/4 standard acres of land and recommended that that area be cancelled.

(2.) The Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated October 28, 1960 (copy Annexure 'B') accepted the recommendations of the Managing Officer and sent the case back to him for considering the request of the petitioner for the purchase of the excess area. The Managing Officer vide order dated 17th November, 1960, accepted the request of the petitioner and he (petitioner) accordingly purchased the same after making the payment determined by the Rehabilitation authorities. This matter was settled in November, 1960. It was after a lapse of about 6 years the respondent No. 1 (Central Government) vide order dated September 29, 1966 (Annexure 'C') set aside the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Managing Officer dated October 28, 1960, and November 17, 1960, and directed that the claim of the petitioner be decided afresh on the basis of the revenue records received from Pakistan.

(3.) It is against the order of the Central Government (Annexure 'C') that the present petition has been filed. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed behind the back of the petitioner as he had not received the notice which was sent to him by registered post. It is a well settled law that no adverse order can be passed by the authorities behind the back of an interested person. In this view of the matter, the petition is accepted and the order of the Central Government (Annexure 'C') is quashed and the case is remanded to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana who is exercising the power of Central Government under Section 33 of the of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on May 5, 1975. No order as to costs.