CHANAN DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute In this case concerns transfer of evacuee property bearing Nos. B765 to 769 in ward No. 7 at Panipat in the district of Karnal, which has been valued by the rehabilitation authorities at Rs 4,733. There have been two claimants to the propertv, Godha Ram respondent 3, and Chanan Das appellant, both displaced persons. In his order of June 1, 1961, with which the Central government refused to interfere under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act 44 of 1954), hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act', as appears from the Under Secretary to Government of india's letter of September 27, 1961, the Chief Settlement Com- missioner, exercising powers of revision under Section 24 of the Act, decided that as Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as 'the 1955 Rules', had amended on March 24, 1961, to the effect that in a competition between two displaced persons the property shall be offered to the one who has the highest compensation, so the property be transferred to Godha Ram respondent 3 because his compensation of Rs. 5,749 was higher than that of the appellant, the amount of whose compensation was Rs. 4,279. Rule 30 of the 1955 Rules before it suffered amendment on March 24, 1961, provided that the property shall be offered to the person whose gross compensation was nearst to the value of the property, and when the rule was in that form, obviously, the property was to be offered to the appellant because his compensation was the nearest to the value of the property. By the time the revision came to be heard by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, but after the stage of the appeal in this case, the rule had been amended as stated above. The chief Settlement Commissioner was, therefore, of the opinion that the amended rule applied to the competing claimants, the appellant and Godha Ram respondent 3. So he decided in favour of Godha Ram respondent.

(2.) THE appellant on November 2, 1961, filed Civil Writ No. 1492 of 1961 challenging the legality of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and seeking a writ direction or order for quashing the same A question having arisen during the hearing of this petition whether the amendment of Rule 30 was retrospective so as to apply to proceedings pending in revision on the date of its coming into force, the learned Single Judge hearing the petition, on October 31, 1963, made a reference of the question to a larger Bench On that this petition No. 1492 of 1961, of the appellant, with a number of other similar petitions, and an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, Mela Ram v. Govt of India. L. P. A. No. 92 of 1963 (Punj), were heard by a Division Bench of Dua and Khanna JJ. , who delivered their judgment on February 19, 1964, in which the learned Judges held that the amended Rule 30 was operative retrospectively, applying to revision applications under Section 24 of the Act pending before the Chief Settlement commissioner on the date of the amendment. In the beginning the heading of the judgment starts with L P. A. No. 92 of 1963, but in the very first few lines of the judgment it is clearly stated that along with other petitions and an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the petition of the appellant, that is, Civil Writ No. 1492 of 1961, was also heard by the Bench on this question. After having given their decision or, the question, the learned Judges directed that all the writ petitions should now be finally decided by Single Bench. " In the appellant's Civil writ No. 1492 of 1961 the order made by the learned Judges was -- "for orders see L. P. A. No. 92 of 1963. " So it is unquestionably apparent that that decision oi the learned Judges was given also in this petition of the appellant. After that this petition of the appellant came for hearing before Khanna J. , and the learned Judge on March 24, 1964, made this order in it --"in view of the decision of the Division bench in L. P. A. No. 92 of 1963, D/- 19-2-1964 (Punj), this petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. " So the petition of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on March 24, 1964. Against that order of the learned single Judge the appellant filed, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, L. P. A. No. 305 of 1964 = (reported in AIR 1967 Punj 297), Chanan Das v. Union of India, in which Godha Ram is respondent 3.

(3.) THIS L. P. A. No. 305 of 1964= (reported in AIR 1967 Punj 297), came for hearing before Mahajan J. and myself, along with another appeal under Clause 10 of the letters Patent, Jiwan Das v. Union of India, L. P. A. No. 1 of 1966 (Punj ). We found that on the question raised in those appeals with regard to the effect of the amendment of rule 30 on and from March 24, 1961, there was conflict of decisions of two Division Benches in this Court, that is to say L. P. A. No. 92 ot 1963, D/- 192-1964, and Harbans Lal v. Union of India, Civil Writ No. 513-D of 1959, D/- 3112-1963 (Punj ). In view of the conflicting Division Bench decisions in those cases, we referred this question to a larger Bench" whether Rule 30, as amended on March 24, 1961, applies to revisions pending on that date or filed thereafter under Sections 24 and 33 of the displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act?" the reference was heard by a Bench of three Judges consisting of Dua and mahajan JJ. and myself. Our judgment answering the question was delivered on september 26, 1966 Mahajan J. and I were of the opinion that Rule 30, as amended on March 24, 1961, was not operative retrospectively so as to affect pending revision applications under Sections 24 and 33 of the Act on March 24, 1961, but Dua J adhered to his view in Mela Ram's case L. P. A. No. 92 of 1963, D/19-2-1964 (Punj ). So by a majority opinion the answer returned was that the amended rule 30 did not apply to revisions pending on March 24, 1961.