GAHNA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two appeals filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent - L.P.A. No. 453 (Gahna Singh V. The Union of India and others and 454 of 1973, Chander Parkash V. Union of India and others, as both the appeals are directed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby two Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 4082 and 4088 of 1970 were dismissed.

(2.) One Mahant Manohar Dass was allotted land measuring 170 standard acres and 8 units in the year 1949 in lieu of land left by him in Pakistan and proprietary rights respecting this land were conferred on him on October 18, 1955. Land measuring 182 Bighas 14 Biswas out of the said land was transferred by Mahant Manohar Dass to Saran Dass by way of gift under registered deed dated April 29, 1957, who in turn sold 177 Bighas 14 Biswas to one Guran Ditta and the remaining 5 Bighas to Gahna Singh appellant in L.P.A. No. 453 of 1973. The earlier sale was pre-empted by the appellant Chander Parkash and a decree for possession was passed in his favour on July 1, 1960. Later on proprietary rights conferred on Manohar Dass were cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated October 16, 1963. Mahant Manohar Dass challenged that order in this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1975 of 1963, which was dismissed by a Division Bench on December 18, 1963 and the judgment of the Division Bench was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 600 of 1967 on October 16, 1970. Thereafter, the appellants approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner for setting aside the said order dated October 16, 1963, on the ground that the same had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, rejected their application vide order dated December 3, 1970. it was this order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner against which C.W.P. Nos. 4082 and 4088 of 1970 were filed.

(3.) The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was challenged by the appellants on the sole ground that the same was passed in violation of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, inasmuch as no opportunity of being heard was afforded to them. The learned Single Judge, however, rejected the contention of the appellants on the ground that the legality of the impugned order has been upheld by the Supreme Court and the same, therefore, could not be set aside simply because no notice was served on the transferees before passing the same.