S SAMPURAN SINGH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, raises the question whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before his verified claim was reduced from Rs. 5,67,500/- to Rs. 2,63,250/-.

(2.) The petitioner is a displaced land-owner of Pakistan. The Claims Officer appointed under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950, verified his claim for a sum of Rs. 5,67,500/-. The Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954, came into force on the 18th March 1954, and a registered notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before Mr. Salig Ram Malik, Additional Settlement Commissioner, Delhi, on 17-1-1955 and show cause why his claim should not be revised. This notice was received back unserved. A notice was then published in "The Tribune" of 15-11-1954, requiring a number of claimants, including the petitioner, to appear before Mr. Malik on 17-1-1955. The petitioner did not appear before Mr. Malik on the due date, but he was later informed that his case was transferred to Mr. Jugal Kishore Khanna on or before the 17th, and that Mr. Khanna passed an ex parte order on 18-1-1955, reducing the petitioner's verified claim from Rs. 5,67,500/-to Rupees 2,63,250/-. The petitioner challenged the validity of this ex parte order by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that he had never received the notice which was issued to him by post, that he never saw the notice which had appeared in "The Tribune", and that the order in question was passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The learned Single, Judge, before whom this petition came up for consideration, found in favour of the Department and dismissed the petition. The petitioner has now preferred an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) The petitioner's case before the learned Single Judge and before us today was that he never received the notice which was sent to him by post and that he never read the notice which was published in "The Tribune" of 15-11-1954. One day towards the end of January 1955 he was informed by one Sampuran Singh, a namesake of the petitioner, that a notice had appeared in "The Tribune" calling upon several persons to appear before Mr. Malik on 17-1-1955. The petitioner verified the correctness of this information, but as the date had already expired he applied immediately for a copy of the order passed by Mr. Malik. On 25th March he received a communication from the office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to the effect that his case had been heard and determined in his absence by Mr. Khanna on 18-1-1955 and that his claim had been reduced by a sum of over three lacs.