9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the third respondent to review the order of the Chief Claims Commissioner. 2. Delay in filing the petition. 3. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the petition. 4. Prematurity of the petition. Detailed Analysis: Jurisdiction of the Third Respondent: The petitioner challenged the order dated 31st October 1962, made by the third respondent, who was the Additional Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The third respondent had reopened and reduced the verified claim of the petitioner from Rs. 4,710 to Rs. 500. The petitioner contended that the third respondent had no jurisdiction to review the order of the Chief Claims Commissioner, who had confirmed the value of the petitioner's claim at Rs. 4,710. The court examined the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950, and the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954, and concluded that the third respondent did not possess the authority to review the final order made by the Chief Claims Commissioner. The Chief Claims Commissioner was the highest authority under the Act, and the third respondent, even with delegated powers, could not revise an order made by an authority of equal or higher rank. Delay in Filing the Petition: The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the delay in filing the petition, arguing that the petitioner approached the court one and a half years after the impugned order was made. The court considered the petitioner's explanation that he had been pursuing relief through various representations and was awaiting responses. Given the petitioner's status as a displaced person and the significant reduction in his verified claim, the court found the explanation satisfactory and decided not to dismiss the petition on the grounds of delay. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court: The respondent's counsel argued that the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction since the third respondent's office was located in New Delhi. However, the court referred to Article 226(1-A) of the Constitution of India, which allows any High Court to exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its territories. Since the petitioner resided in Ullasnagar, Maharashtra, and the hearing was conducted in Bombay, the court held that the cause of action partly arose within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the court had the authority to entertain the petition. Prematurity of the Petition: The respondent's counsel contended that the petition was premature as no action had been taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order. The court dismissed this argument, noting that the petitioner's rights were already jeopardized by the reduction of his verified claim from Rs. 4,710 to Rs. 500. The petitioner faced potential financial consequences, including the requirement to refund any excess amount if property had been allotted to him. Therefore, the court found that the petition was not premature. Conclusion: The court concluded that the third respondent had no jurisdiction to review the order of the Chief Claims Commissioner. The preliminary objections regarding delay, jurisdiction, and prematurity were overruled. The impugned order dated 31st October 1962, was quashed, and the original order dated 28th April 1953, confirming the petitioner's verified claim at Rs. 4,710, was restored. The respondents were directed to pay the costs of the petition.
|
