Arjan Lal vs Union of India and others

P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Arjan Lal, challenging the legality of the order dated 11th of November, 1963, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jullundur, respondent No. 2.

The petitioner was a displaced person from West Pakistan and on his migration to India, he was allotted 51 Standard Acres and 2-3/4 Units of land in village Mohna, district Gurgaon, in lieu of the land abandoned by him in Pakistan. A part of this area was under the occupancy tenants and soma of it was restored to the allottees who had preferential rights over the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, given alternative allotment to the extent of 3 Standard Acres and 3/4 Units in villages Mevla Maharajpur, Baselwa and Tajupur. Subsequently, the allotment in villages Ba(sic)elwa and Tajupur was also cancelled and for the area in these two villages, he was allotted land in villages Mevla Maharajpur, Sarohi and Chhansa. According to the return of the State, this last allotment was obtained by the petitioner in collusion with the field staff. Later on, the petitioner was given permanent rights in respect of the area allotted to him, in the above-mentioned three villages, as an alternative measure According to the petitioner, the mutation with respect to the said land was also then sanctioned in his favour and a permanent Sanad given to him Out of the land in village Sarohi, according to the petitioner, he had sold 21 Kanals 2 Marias in favour of Qamar-ud-din, respondent No. 4 and the rest to Asrupa, Jummekhan and Isab. On 1st of October, 1963, the Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer, Palwal, respondent No. 3, made a reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, respondent No. 2, for setting aside the alternative allotment made in favour of the petitioner in the above-mentioned three villages on the basis of certain departmental instructions, according to which the petitioner, who was a land allottee of village Mohna, should have been given alternative allotment in that very village, as sufficient area was available for that purpose there. According to the petitioner, the Managing Officer had wrongly stated that the land at village Mohna was still available for allotment. He also directed the petitioner to appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 21st October, 1963. According to the petitioner, he was seriously ill on 21st October, 1963 and he, therefore, sent a telegram to respondent No. 2 for the adjournment of the case. He also sent an application for the said purpose, alongwith a medical certificate. He requested respondent No. 2 that the next date to which the case might be adjourned, be communicated to him. On 21st October 1963, respondent No. 2 adjourned the proceedings to 11th November, 1963. On that date, since the petitioner did not appear before respondent No. 2, ex-parte proceedings were taken against him and the impugned order was passed. The reference made by the Managing Officer was accepted and the permanent rights acquired by the petitioner, with respect to 3 Standard Acres and 3/4 Units allotted in his name in the said three villages were set aside. Against this order, an application u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was made to the Central Government, but the same was dismissed on 8th of April 1964. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 29th May, 1964

In the writ petition, a number of grounds have been mentioned for the setting aside of the impugned order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, but after hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the said order should be quashed on the ground that it was passed behind the back of the petitioner, without giving proper notice to him. In the impugned order, it was stated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the petitioner was directed by the Managing Officer to appear before the former on 21st October 1963, but he failed to do so on that date and a feleg am was received from him praving for an adjournment. The case was, accordingly, adjourned to 11th November, 1983 and a notice was again issued to the petitioner for appearing before him on 11th November, 1963. Since he again absented on that date, ex parte proceedings were taken against him. Rule 117 (i) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1965 says that every order or notice made or issued under the Act or the Rules shall be served by registered post acknowledgment due. It is clear from the impugned order and the return filed by the respondents that this rule was not complied with and registered acknowledgment due notice was not sent to the petitioner. It was contend d by the learned Advocate General that Since the Managing Officer had informed the petitioner to appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 21 October 1963, it was then his duty to keep in touch with the further proceedings of the case before respondent No. 2. If he did not appear on 2ist October, 1963 and only sent a telegram to respondent No. 2 for the adjournment of the ease, he himself should have enquired about the next date of hearing, which had been fixed by respondent No. 2 and there was no need for the Chief Settlement Commissioner to issue any notice, as mentioned in rule 117 to the petitioner informing him about the next date of hearing. It is common ground that a telegram had been sent to respondent No. 2 on 21st October, 1963 to the effect that the petitioner, being ill, could not appear before him on that date. Admittedly, the petitioner was not before respondent No. 2 on 21st October, 1963 when the next J date of hearing was fixed. In my view, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had to inform the petitioner about the next date by complying with rule 117 and it would not be quite correct to say that the petitioner should have himself found out the next date of hearing and present himself before respondent No. 2 on that date. Assuming for the sake of argument that respondent No. 2 had fixed 22nd or 23rd of October, 1933, how could the petitioner be expected to attend on that date, when perhaps he might still be confined to bed ?

Moreover, acceding to rule 105 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, the procedure laid down in Order XLI of the CPC applies to the hearing of appeals and revisions under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954. Under Order XLI, rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court, unless it dismisses the appeal without hearing the respondent under Order XLI rule II, Civil Procedure Code, has to fix a day for the hearing of the appeal and a notice of the date has to be given to the respondent so that he can appear and answer the appeal on that day. In the instant case, the Chief Settlement Commissioner was accepting the reference made by the Managing Officer against the petitioner and it was, therefore, necessary for him to issue notice to the petitioner of the adjourned date of hearing, so that he could come on that date and represent his case before the said officer.

In some what similar circumstances, Narula, J. in Kishan Singh v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner (1967) 69 P.L.R. 555, considered this point and held as under :

It is the duty of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to act in the matter of the disposal of the revision petition in exactly the same manner as an appellate Court is required to act under Rules 11 and 12 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even for a preliminary hearing under sub-rule (1) of rule 11 of Order 41, a date of hearing has to be fixed of which notice must go to the petitioner before a revision petition is dismissed in limine He is enjoined by the requirements of sub rule (1) of Rules 12 of Order 41 to fix a date for hearing the revision petition before it is accepted and an order is passed against respondent. Hearing by the Managing Officer and a direction by him to the parties to appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner is not enough and is no substitute for the hearing by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

In this view of the matter, it is needless for me to discuss the other grounds mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition

In view of what I have said above, I would accept this petition and quash the impugned order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and alongwith it the order dated 8th of April, 1964 passed by the Central Government on the petitioner''s application u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 There will be no order as to costs.