TARLOK NATH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARLOK Nath petitioner, a displaced landowner from Bahawalpur State, was allotted 73.8 standard acres of land in village Naghtala and another 73 -8 standard acres in village Gangoha in Tehsil and District Hissar on a. temporary basis awaiting the receipt of authentic copies of the relevant revenue records from Pakistan. Permanent rights in respect of the entire holding were conferred on the petitioner in due course. By order, dated December '2/5, 1960 (Annexure 'A'), the Assistant Registrar -cum Managing Officer gave an additional allotment of 1 -2 standard acres of land to the petitioner in village Naghtala, consequent on a decision of the Government to increase the valuation of the land left by displaced persons in Bahawalpur State. On a reference by Shri S. D. Kitval, Assistant Registrar -cum -Managing Officer, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, by his order, dated May 15, 1963 (Annexure 'B') held that the total entitlement of the petitioner according to the revenue records received from Pakistan was 137 3/4 standard aces aid against that the Petitioner had already got a total area of 148 -3 1/4 standard acres. Shri J.M. Tandon, Chief settlement Commissioner, accordingly cancelled the excess area of 1090 standard acres including the additional area of 1 -2 standard acres allowed to the petitioner by the order of the Assistant Registrar -cum -Managing officer dated December 2/5, l960 (Annexure 'A'). The whole cancellation was ordered out of the land allotted to the petitioner in village Naghtala The permanent rights in respect of the excess land were ordered to be cancelled.

(2.) MAGHUR Singh and others, respondents 3 to 7, then applied for review of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the ground that they were vendees of the land allotted to the petitioner in village Naghtala. They prayed that the excess land should be retrieved from the petitioner's holding in village Gangoha. Notice of the application of respondents 3 to 7 was given to the petitioner. After hearing him, Shri J. M. Tandon. Chief Settlement Commissioner, by his impugned order, dated October, 7, 1964 (Annexure 'C'), held that the petitioner having conceded that he had, in fact, sold the entire land originally allotted to him in village Naghtala to respondents 3 to 7, it was in the interest of justice that the excess land should be retrieved from the other holding of the petitioner. He, however, maintained the order for the cancellation of 1 -2 standard acres of land from village is Naghtala. It was to quash the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated October, 7, 1934 (Annexure 'C') that the present writ petition was filed on March, 6, 1960. Dispossession of the petitioner from the excess land ordered to be retrieved from him was stayed by Dulat and Grover, JJ. while admitting this writ petition on March 12, 1965. The petition is contested by respondent No. 3, who has filed a return, dated May 26, 1965, and by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who have filed a written statement, dated February 21, 1968.

(3.) THE only other argument of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order. The argument is that howsoever equitable the relief granted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner may be, the order cannot be sustained if it lacks inherent jurisdiction. The reply of the State is that the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, are unfettered and plenary and the Chief Settlement Commissioner can, therefore, pass any appropriate order in matters like this, if the interests of justice so demand. I am not inclined to agree with this contention. Power of review can only be exercised if it is conferred by a statute on the appropriate authority. The only jurisdiction to review granted by the Act is contained in section 25 thereof. Sub section (2) of section 25 reads as under.