JUDGMENT - Patel, J.

(1) These petitions seek to challenge the orders of review made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, and the Regional Settlement Commissioner.

(2) The facts in Special Civil Application No. 1392 of 1964 are: The petitioners are the heirs of one Hassomal alias Hassanand. Hassanand was and the petitioners are displaced persons. In accordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950, they made applications making claims in connection with their properties left in Pakistan, one being in respect of agricultural land. The Claims Officer, one G. L. Ajwani, rejected the claim ex parte on January 15, 1953. Hassomal applied to the Settlement Officer against the decision. The application was heard by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. He scrutinised the claim and accepted the same to the extent of 414 acres and 4 gunthas. Against this claim, they were allotted 291 standard acres and 2-1/2 units. By as subsequent allotment, dated 12-1-1960, of land at Nizamabad, this claim was satisfied. The heirs of Hassomal sold this land on January 14, 1960.

(3) Later on, the Additional Settlement Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioners to show cause why the verified claim respecting the land should not be set aside. The petitioners appeared and produced the papers in respect of their claim. On April 11, 1963, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Mr. Wason, made an order reviewing the earlier verification dated March 18, 1955 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, and rejected the claim of 291 standard acres and 2-1/2 gunthas see Exhibit D). The petitioners took a revisional petition to the Chief Settlement Commissioner which was heard by the Additional Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The revisional authority rejected the revisional petition on February 29,1964 (see Exhibit F). The petitioners seek to challenge this order.

(4) The facts in Special Civil Application No. 847 of 1965 are: The petitioner is a displaced person and applied making a claim to 22 acres and 35 gunthas of agricultural land at Deh Baberloi. By an order dated December 12, 1952 the Claims Officer accepted his claim and valued it at 14 standard acres and 11.115/128 annas. Thereafter. the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated March 23, 1957 in suo motu revision, reduced his claim to 4 standard acres 3 annas, on the ground that the official record supported the petitioners claim only to the extent of 6 acres and 20 gunthas. We understand from Mr. Gurusahani that, against this order, on April 26, 1957, the petitioner applied in revision to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The copy of the order in revision will form part of the record and will be marked Exhibit H. The application was rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on May 31, 1957, on the ground that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. It appears that these orders were overlooked by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, and he issued a statement of account of August 28, 1959, by which it was conveyed to the petitioner that a particular amount was payable to him. It also appears that, from time to time, in response to the request of the petitioner, the amount available against the petitioners claim was adjusted against the properties conveyed to him out of the compensation pool. Eventually, the notice, Exhibit E, was issued by the Regional Settlement Commissioner to the petitioner on March 23, 1965, by which he called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be required to make payment of the excess amount sanctioned on his claims. The notice purports to have been issued under S. 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. In response to this notice, the petitioner appeared before him, and after hearing him, the Regional Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner made the impugned order.

(5) Many

Click Here to Read the rest of this document