S J S UPPAL P C S COLONISATION OFFICER JULLUNDUR Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMR MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION GOVT OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Jaswant Singh Uppal owned considerable urban and rural lauds in Lyallpur. The present case relates to urban land. PS area was 20 acres 3 kanals,. 14 marks, 212 sq. ft. Out of this area Jaswant Singh Uppal Bled a claim for verification, for 18 acres, 1 kanal, 14 marlas, as the remaining area had been built upon and its claim was separately" filed. In this petition only the unbuilt area of about 18 acres is involved. At the time of partition the claimant had earmarked this area for development into residential plots, but the scheme had not yet materialised and at the time of partition it was actually under cultivation. This area was near about Lahore-Lyallpur Road and was situated between built up area. It was situated in the locality known as Abadi Jiwan Singhwala within the municipal limits of Lyallpur, (this name is given to this area after the name of claimant's father Jiwan Singh ). " the claimant has valued this land at Rs. 29,14,000 at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per marla. By his order dated the 2nd of August 1952, the claims Officer valued the entire area at Rs. 800 per marla on the basis of developed land and after taking into consideration the value of neighbouring sites of Makhan Singh and of Amar Singh Harbans Singh. The Claims Officer, however, did not allow any compensation for the area which would have been under roads after its full development and also deducted costs of laying the roads. Thus the claims Officer assessed and verified the claim at Rs. 18,23,550. The claimant filed a revision petition under Section 6 (3) of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950, before the Claims Commissioner who divided the entire area into 2914 plots without deducting any area for roads and valued it at Rs. 800 per marla. Thus the claim was verified on the 20th of January 1953 at Rs. 23,31,200. It appears that Shri Shiv Lal Malik, Claims Commissioner, revised the assessment made by the. Claims Officer on the 2nd of August 1952 and by his order dated the 28th of April 1953, reduced it to Rs. 1. 1,66,600 (annexure 'd' filed with the written statement ). The petitioner as well as the respondents in the reply state this figure at Rs. 18,23,550 which is. The amount which was assessed by the claims Officer. This order purports to have been made under Section 5 (1) (b) of the 1954 Act. The copy of the order produced in this case does not show whether it was passed in the presence of or after notice to the claimant,

(2.) THE proceedings were again started and this time by Shri R. K. Vaish, Settlement commissioner, under Section 5 (1) (b) of the 1954 Act on the ground that there were two conflicting orders of two different revising authorities. He called upon the claimant to appear before him on the 29th of May 1954 and after hearing him he dictated an order which shows that he was inclined to uphold the order of the claims Commissioner dated the 20th of January 1953, the petitioner applied for a copy of this order but it was never supplied to him in spite of his repeated requests. Tho Settlement Commissioner directed the claimant by notice dated the 25th of june 1954 to produce documentary evidence before him in the nature of sale-deeds and affidavits of respectable persons to prove the value of land in 1946. He also called upon the claimant to file his affidavit disclosing how he had acquired the land in. question. Thereafter proceedings were taken and the Settlement commissioner by his order dated the 19th of May 1955 reduced the assessment of the value of this land to Rs. 400 per marla and verified the claim at Rs. 11,65,600. It is against this order that the claimant has made the present petition under article 226 of the Constitution for an order in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the same.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the petitioner's case on merits I may notice the contention of the learned Advocate-General to the effect that the impugned order cannot be considered to bo a judicial or quasi-judicial order and therefore this Court cannot interfere with it and cannot quash it by issue of a writ of certiorari. He argued that the authorities under the 1950 and 1954 Acts are in the position of statutory valuers without any duty or obligation to act judicially. "it is to be noticed that the learned Advocate-General was not willing to call the order to be an order passed in the exercise, of administrative or executive jurisdiction.