9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act is liable to be set aside on the grounds that it was passed by an officer not authorized to do so under Section 34 of the Act, because it was passed without giving an oral hearing to the petitioner and because he did not give reasons for the order? 2. Whether the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed under Section 24(1) of the Act was bad for an error of law apparent on the face of the record and because he did not give reasons? 3. Whether the order of the Settlement Officer with the delegated powers of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, dated 6-11-1962, was wrong? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Order of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act: The petitioner challenged the order of the Central Government on three grounds: it was passed by an unauthorized officer, it was passed without giving an oral hearing, and it did not provide reasons for the dismissal. The court held that the Deputy Secretary was authorized to transact the business of the Government under the Transaction of Business Rules, thus rejecting the first ground. The court also found that the Central Government was not bound to give an oral hearing to the petitioner, as the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and the Rules framed thereunder did not require it. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice do not necessitate an oral hearing at every stage. Lastly, the court held that the Central Government was not required to provide reasons for its order if it adopted the reasons given by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which were found to be sufficient and fully reasoned. 2. Order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24(1) of the Act: The petitioner contended that the Chief Settlement Commissioner made an error of law by holding that no proceeding for partition was pending on 31-12-1960 and did not provide reasons for his order. The court found that the view taken by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was arguable, as the petitioner did not move the Assistant Settlement Commissioner for the division of the property following the remand order dated 11-1-1960. The court also noted that the Chief Settlement Commissioner alternatively assumed that a partition proceeding was pending and held that the property was not partible. The court concluded that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was entitled to adopt the reasons given by Shri Behl and that the order was not bad for want of reasons. 3. Order of the Settlement Officer with delegated powers of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, dated 6-11-1962: The petitioner argued that the order of the Settlement Officer was wrong as it did not take into account the opinion expressed by Shri Parshotam Sarup. The court found that the order of Shri Behl was a fully discussed and reasoned order and that it was not shown to be wrong in any respect. The court emphasized that the merits of the questions decided by the officer acting under the Act are not for the court to review, as it is not sitting in appeal over those orders. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the grounds raised by the petitioner. The court upheld the orders of the Central Government, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and the Settlement Officer with the delegated powers of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, concluding that they were valid and properly reasoned. No order was made as to costs.
|
