The mode of service adopted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not reasonably calculated to give the petitioner actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard, and the petitioner was not informed that his case had been transferred from one officer to another, which was a requirement for a valid ex parte order.

A.N.Bhandari, J.

1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, raises the question whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before his verified claim was reduced from Rs. 5,67,500.00 to Rs. 2,63,250.00 .

2. The petitioner is a displaced land-owner of Pakistan. The Claims Officer appointed under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 , verified his claim for a sum of Rs. 5,67,500.00 . The Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954, came into force on the 18th March 1954, and a registered notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before Mr. Salig Ram Malik, Additional Settlement Commissioner, Delhi, on 17-1-1955 and show cause why his claim should not be revised. This notice was received back unserved. A notice was then published in "The Tribune" of 15-11-1954, requiring a number of claimants, including the petitioner, to appear before Mr. Malik on 17-1-1955. The petitioner did not appear before Mr. Malik on the due date, but he was later informed that his case was transferred to Mr. Jugal Kishore Khanna on or before the 17th, and that Mr. Khanna passed an ex parte order on 18-1-1955, reducing the petitioners verified claim from Rs. 5,67,500.00 to Rupees 2,63,250.00 . The petitioner challenged the validity of this ex parte order by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that he had never received the notice which was issued to him by post, that he never saw the notice which had appeared in "The Tribune", and that the order in question was passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The learned Single, Judge, before whom this petition came up for consideration, found in favour of the Department and dismissed the petition. The petitioner has now preferred an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

3. The petitioners case before the learned Single Judge and before us today was that he never received the notice which was sent to him by post and that he never read the notice which was published in "The Tribune" of 15-11-1954. One day towards the end of January 1955 he was informed by one Sampuran Singh, a namesake of the petitioner, that a notice had appeared in "The Tribune" calling upon several persons to appear before Mr. Malik on 17-1-1955. The petitioner verified the correctness of this information, but as the date had already expired he applied immediately for a copy of the order passed by Mr. Malik. On 25th March he received a communication from the office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to the effect that his case had been heard and determined in his absence by Mr. Khanna on 18-1-1955 and that his claim had been reduced by a sum of over three lacs.

4. Two submissions have been placed before us on behalf of the petitioner viz., (1) that the form of service adopted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not reasonably calculated to give the petitioner actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard; and (2) that in any case the petitioner was not informed that his case had been transferred to Mr. Khanna and that he should appear before the said officer on the 18th January.

5. Sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act of 1954 empowers the Chief Settlement Commissioner, either on an application by a person aggrieved by the decision of a Claims Officer or of his own motion, to call for the record of the case and make such order in the case as he thinks fit. Sub-section (2) provides that no order varying the decision of the Claims Officer or revising any verified claim which prejudicially affects any person, shall be made without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Rule 19 of the Rule made by the Central Government under section 12 of the Act of 1954 requires that every notice issued under the said Rules shall be served upon the claimant by pre-paid registered post with an acknowledgement due at the address mentioned in the claim file or at such other address as may be