BARA SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JOGINDER Singh and his brother Harbans Singh had a third brother named Gurdip Singh, who was killed in Pakistan during the disturbances, and when Joginder Singh and Harbans Singh came to India they put in claims in respect of their properties as well as in respect of the property of Gurdip Singh as his heirs. Each of them was allotted some agricultural land and also one house, and, over and above this, allotment was made in the name of Gurdip Singh of some agricultural land and one house No. 50 situated in Adampur in the Jullundur District. The date of the allotment of this house was 6-10-1950. In due course, this property was act quired by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and on 6-12-1955 the Managing Offices concerned transferred this house (No. 50) to Joginder. Singh and Harbans Singh, and granted a sanad as required by the rules made under the Act of 1954. It appears that one Bara Singh was interested in this house and claimed to be in its occupation and he therefore moved the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to cancel the allotment made in the name of Gurdip Singh. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner, however, felt that he could not do so as the proprietary rights in the house had been already transferred to Jogindar Singh and Harbans Singh, and on this view he rejected the prayer. Bara Singh then went in revision to the Chief Settlement commissioner, and that officer considered the whole matter and found that the allotment of this particular house in the name of Gurdip Singh was unjustified as Gurdip Singhi had never settled in any rural area in India, having died in Pakistan, and he went on to conclude that the proprietary rights in this house ought not to have been transferred to Joginder Singh and Harbans singh. On these findings the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled the order of the Managing officer dated 6-12-1955 granting the sanad to Joginder Singh and Harbans Singh in respect of this house and also cancelled the order of 6-10-1950 by which the allotment of the house had been originally made. This led to a writ petition by Joginder Singh and Harbans Singh seeking a direction front this Court to quash the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The petition was heard by Gurnam Singh J. , who formed the opinion that the Chief Settlement commissioner was not competent either to cancel the sanad granted to the petitioners transferring the proprietary rights to them, nor competent to cancel the order of allotment made on 6-10-1950. The writ petition was therefore allowed and the order of the Chief Settlement commissioner set aside. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, Bara Singh has filed an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, and it is supported by the Advocate-General on behalf of the Chief Settlement commissioner.

(2.) THE entire argument in this case turns on the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act 44 of 1954 ). The learned Single Judge holds that once a sanad was granted to the claimants, namely Joginder singh and Harbans Singh, it was not open to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel the transfer because the order transferring the property had merged in the sanad, and thereafter the grant could be resumed only by the President in accordance with the conditions of the sanad, and it is this argument which has been pressed for our acceptance on behalf of the respondents, To appreciate it, it is necessary to go into some of the provisions of the Act of 1954. The Act was designed for acquiring certain property to be transferred to displaced persons in satisfaction of their claims regarding property left by them in Pakistan. Section 10 of the Act, on which considerable reliance seems to have been placed by the learned Single Judge, directs that any immovable property leased or allotted to a displaced person by the Custodian must be allowed to remain in the possession of that person on the same terms and conditions, and that the central Government may, for the purpose of payment of compensation to such displaced person, actually transfer such property to him. It is sought to be concluded from this provision that in no circumstances could such property allotted to a displaced person by the Custodian be taken away from him. Actually, however, it is not so because Section 19 of the Act gives wide powers to a managing officer appointed under the Act to cancel or terminate any such allotment notwithstanding any contract or any other law, the only limitation being that such cancellation must proceed in accordance with the rules made under the Act. The learned Single Judge admits this hut goes on to observe that this power to cancel an allotment is given by the Act to a managing officer alone and concludes that it could not be exercised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The power of the Chief Settlement commissioner is defined by Section 24 of the Act. This says --

(3.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge and also before us reliance was placed on the conditions appearing on the sanad in Appendices XVII and XVIII, and assistance was sought from one of the conditions stating that the grant could be resumed by the President in case the Central government was at any time satisfied and recorded a decision that the transferee or his predecessor-in-interest had obtained the grant or allotment of the property by fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact, and on this was built the argument that the intention of the rules was that once a sanad is granted there can be no resumption of the grant except on the grounds so mentioned in the sanad. The argument seems to rest on a misapprehension. As I have already mentioned, the authority to transfer acquired property to displaced persons in payment of compensation is to be found in section 10 of Act 44 of 1954--which provision authorises the transfer of such property on "such terms and conditions as may be prescribed". Rules 72 and 73 then prescribe the terms and conditions by specifying the form of the sanad, so that the condition in the sanad which K so much relied upon is merely the exercise of the rule-making power of the Central Government in accordance with Section 10 of the Act. It has nothing to do with and can have no effect on the powers of the Chief Settlement commissioner under Section 24 of the Act. It is clear that Parliament has given certain powers to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to correct the errors of his subordinates, and those powers are exercisable by him alone, and equally clear that under the Act he can always reverse an order transferring any property to a claimant, and the sanad will fall with it. This power cannot be affected by the circumstance that even otherwise the President can in certain circumstances resume the grant. The unspoken thought behind the argument on behalf of the respondents seems to be that, if an exalted person like the President has only limited powers to resume a grant, it is not proper that the Chief Settlement Commissioner should have wider powers, but here apparently the argument ignores the fact that all power in this connection flows front the will of Parliament as expressed in the Act and that enactment leaves no doubt that the Chief Settlement Commissioner can at any time reverse an order authorising the grant of proprietary rights. I am unable to agree that grant of a sanad is 'anything more and I cannot therefore say that, be cause a sanad had been granted to the respondents, the transfer in their favour could not be upset by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.