1969 Supreme(Del) 165

High Court Of Delhi
LABH SINGH ATMA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 09/18/1969

The Central Government's residuary power under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, is distinct from the revisional powers under Section 24, and does not require an oral hearing to the petitioner.

Headnote:

DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954 - SECTION 33 - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT'S RESIDUARY POWER - ORAL HEARING - NECESSITY - REASONS FOR ORDER - SUFFICIENCY - PARTITION OF PROPERTY - PENDENCY OF PROCEEDING - DETERMINATION - REVISION BY CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER - SCOPE - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 were occupants of acquired evacuee property. Petitioner, a non-claimant, sought division of the property, which was rejected by the Managing Officer. Petitioner's appeal was accepted by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, who remanded the case for determination of eligibility for division. The Regional Settlement Commissioner ordered adjustment of part value of the property against compensation payable to Respondent No. 4. Petitioner's appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for determination of divisibility and eligibility. The Settlement Officer held that the property was not divisible. The Chief Settlement Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's revision petition, holding that no partition proceeding was pending on the relevant date and that the property was indivisible. The Central Government dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 33 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the impugned orders in a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Central Government's order under Section 33 was not vitiated by the absence of an oral hearing to the petitioner, as the Act and Rules did not provide for such a hearing. The power under Section 33 was a residuary power, distinct from the revisional powers under Section 24, and Rule 105, which applied Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code to appeals and revisions, did not apply to proceedings under Section 33. Natural justice did not require an oral hearing in this case, considering the petitioner had already received a full hearing at various stages under the Act and Rules. 2. The Central Government's order was not bad for not giving reasons, as it was entitled to adopt the reasons given by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order, which was a fully reasoned order. 3. The Chief Settlement Commissioner's order was not bad for error of law apparent on the face of the record, as it was arguable that no partition proceeding was pending on the relevant date. Alternatively, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had assumed that a partition proceeding was pending and had held that the property was not partible, which was a finding of fact not open to challenge in a writ petition. 4. The Settlement Officer's order was a fully discussed and reasoned order, and its merits were not subject to review in a writ petition.

Issues: 1. Whether the Central Government's order under Section 33 was vitiated by the absence of an oral hearing to the petitioner? 2. Whether the Central Government's order was bad for not giving reasons? 3. Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order was bad for error of law apparent on the face of the record? 4. Whether the Settlement Officer's order was wrong?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power under Section 33 was a residuary power, distinct from the revisional powers under Section 24, and Rule 105, which applied Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code to appeals and revisions, did not apply to proceedings under Section 33. Natural justice did not require an oral hearing in this case, considering the petitioner had already received a full hearing at various stages under the Act and Rules. 2. The Central Government was entitled to adopt the reasons given by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order, which was a fully reasoned order. 3. It was arguable that no partition proceeding was pending on the relevant date. Alternatively, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had assumed that a partition proceeding was pending and had held that the property was not partible, which was a finding of fact not open to challenge in a writ petition. 4. The Settlement Officer's order was a fully discussed and reasoned order, and its merits were not subject to review in a writ petition.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.