1969 (10) TMI 66 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Shri M. S. Chaddha, while exercising the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to revise the order made by the Claims Commissioner exercising the revisional power of the Chief Claims Commissioner under the principal Act? Whether there was a clear error of law apparent on the face of the record with the result that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in quashing the order of the Settlement Commissioner, and that the Letters Patent Bench was in error in allowing the appeal? Held that - Allow the appeal and setting aside the order of the Letters Patent Bench restore that of the Single Judge. It was agreed at the bar that as directed by the Single Judge the case should go back to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to revise the order of the Claims Commissioner.
2. Error of law apparent on the face of the record and the validity of the Settlement Commissioner's order.
3. Interpretation of the powers under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to revise the order of the Claims Commissioner:

The appellant contended that Shri M. S. Chaddha, while exercising the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to revise the order made by the Claims Commissioner exercising the revisional power of the Chief Claims Commissioner under the principal Act. The court examined the provisions of the Principal Act and the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954. The principal Act was enacted to provide for the registration and verification of claims of displaced persons in respect of immovable property in Pakistan. The supplementary Act was enacted to provide for the disposal of certain proceedings pending under the principal Act and for matters connected therewith. The court noted that the language used in s. 5(1)(b) of the supplementary Act is unambiguous and it clearly empowers the Chief Settlement Commissioner to revise any verified claim and make such orders in relation thereto as he thinks fit. The court concluded that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had the power suo motu to revise a claim on which a final order had been passed under the principal Act by the Chief Claims Commissioner.

2. Error of law apparent on the face of the record and the validity of the Settlement Commissioner's order:

The appellant argued that there was a clear error of law apparent on the face of the record, justifying the learned Single Judge's decision to quash the order of the Settlement Commissioner. The court agreed with the Single Judge's conclusion that the Settlement Commissioner had proceeded to deal with the value of the property on wholly conjectural grounds, ignored important evidence, and held certain documents to be forged without any evidence in support of the finding. The court found that the Settlement Commissioner based his conclusions on pure conjectures and surmises without any legal evidence on the record to support them. The court restored the order of the Single Judge, which had set aside and quashed the Settlement Commissioner's order.

3. Interpretation of the powers under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954:

The court examined the scope of the Chief Settlement Commissioner's powers under the supplementary Act. The appellant argued that the power of revision under s. 5(1)(b) is restricted to the verification of the claim and its valuation is outside its purview. The court rejected this contention, stating that the final order under the principal Act includes both verification of title and valuation. The court also addressed the appellant's argument that the grounds for revision under rule 18 of the Displaced Persons (Verification of Claim) Supplementary Rules, 1954, do not fall within the first three clauses of the rule. The court found that the grounds given by the Settlement Commissioner were analogous to clause (iii) of rule 18, which speaks of gross and material irregularity or disparity in the valuation of the claim. The court concluded that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's power of revision extended to the valuation of the claim.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Letters Patent Bench and restoring the order of the Single Judge. The case was remitted back to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The court made it clear that this order should not be construed to contain any expression of opinion on the merits of the evidentiary value of the material on the record concerning the valuation of the claim. The appellant was entitled to his costs.