F.C. (Taxation) Punjab etc. vs Sujan Singh etc.

S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.—In this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, the solitary meaningful issue is whether Shri J.S. Quami, P.C.S., holding the substantive rank of a settlement Officer at the material time had been validly delegated the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner u/s 34(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954?

In view of the fact that the question aforesaid is entirely legal, a brief reference to the facts amply suffices. Sujan Singh Respondent had brought the writ petition inter alia challenging the order, annexure P.5, whereby Shri J.S. Quami exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab had dismissed his revision petition. In passing, it may be mentioned that the order aforesaid was later as fir me a u/s 33 of the Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called ''the Act'') by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) on June 11, 1974 vide annexure P.6.

As stands noticed by the judgment of the learned Single Judge the only contention advanced on behalf of the Respondent-writ Petitioner was that his revision petition u/s 24 of the Act was heard by the Respondent No. 2 (Shri J.S. Quami) who was not competent to hear the same because he was not validly vested with the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. This contention found favour with the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that u/s 34(2) of the Act, the Chief Settlement Commissioner could delegate all or any of his powers to the joint chief Settlement Commissioner, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner or an Assistant Settlement Commissioner. Holding that at the material time, Shri J.S. Quami was occupying the substantive rank of a Settlement Officer only, the learned Single Judge held that the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not be validly delegated to him. As a necessary consequence it was held that the order passed by Shri J.S. Quami was without jurisdiction and the same was quashed. The State of Punjab Appeals.

Mr. Mohinderjit Singh Sethi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, forcefully contends that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been rendered per incurium of a material legal precision in the shape of the Government notification appointing every Additional Settlement Officer and every Settlement Officer (Sales) in the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of Punjab as an Assistant Settlement Commissioner. Counsel contends that in view of this notification, Shri J.S. Quami in the eye of law stood appointed as an Assistant Settlement Commissioner and consequently could be validly delegated the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner u/s 34(2) of the Act.

There is apparent merit in the aforesaid contention. Even though the learned Counsel for the parties were remiss in not bringing the relevant notification to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the same cannot be ignored because undoubtedly it is a validly promulgated statutory provision which goes to the very root of the issue. It could not even be disputed by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the notification aforesaid had been issued by a competent authority and bad been duly gazetted and published. That being so, we feel compelled to permit the raising of the argument aforesaid on behalf of the Appellant State.

Once it is so, the plain statutory provisions are themselves eloquent. Section 34(2) of the Act is in the following terms:

Subject to the provision of this Act and the rule and orders made thereunder, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may by general or special order delegate all or any of his powers under this Act to the Joint Chief Settlement Commissioner, (a Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner) a Settlement Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner or an Assistant Settlement Commissioner, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specfied in the order.

The material notification reads as under:

Copy of notification No. 3(37) L and R 63-B dated 5th March 1964 published at page 1130 of the Gazette of India, part II Section 3(ii) dated 14th March, 1964.

New Delhi 5th March, 1964. S.O. 878. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Displaced Persons (C and R) Act, 1954 (44) of 1954 the Central Government hereby appoints:

(a) every Additional Settlement Officer and every Settlement Officer (Sales) in the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of Punjab as an Assistant Settlement Commissioner.

(b) the Deputy Secretary in the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of Punjab as Settlement Commissioner for the purpose of performing the function assigned to an Assistant Settlement Commissioner or a Settlement Commissioner, as the case may be by or under the said Act, in relation to properties referred to in the notification of the Government off India in the Ministry of Works, Housing and Rehabilitation (Department of Rehabilitation) No. 3(37)(L and R) 63-A dated the 5th March, 1664.

No. 3(37)(L and R) 63-B.

In the light of the aforesaid provisions all that calls for notice is that admittedly Shri J.S. Quami was holding the substantive rank of a Settlement Officer in the Rehabilitation Department. Inevitably by virtue of the afore-quoted notification he stood expressly appointed as an Assistant Settlement Commissioner That being so, the provisions of Section 34-(2) can plainly be attracted to this case. These, in terms warrant the delegation of the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner to an Assistant Settlement Commissioner. It necessarily follows that the conferment of these powers on Shri J.S. Quami, would be beyond the pale of challenge when the necessary statutory provisions are read along -with the notification dated March 5, 1964. With great respect we are constrained to allow this writ petition as the material provisions of the notification were not brought to notice and therefore could not be applied and construed by the learned {Single Judge The judgment under appeal has to be set aside and the orders of the Settlement Authorities are maintained.

Before parting with the judgment, it may be noticed that Mr. H.S. Wasu, the learned Counsel for the Respondents had prayed that in view of the fact that the writ petition had been allowed on a legal ground alone, he may be permitted to address arguments on merits as well. An adjournment being granted for the purpose, Mr. Wasu very fairly stated that in fact issues of fact stood concluded against him by the judgment of this Court in a Regular Second Appeal earlier preferred by the Respondent. Counsel, therefore, frankly conceded that he had nothing meaningful to urge on merits. The appeal is allowed, but in view of the fair stand taken by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, we make no order as to costs.