- (1.) The petitioners are displaced persons from West Pakistan. In lieu of their house left in West Pakistan, they filed a claim which was registered as Index No. P/SL-4/247 and was verified at Rs. 20,000/- by Shri Sohan Lal, Claims Officer, Karnal, vide order dated January 13, 1952, a copy of which is Annexure 'A' to the petition. It is averred by the petitioners that they in fact had claimed Rs. 26,000/- for the house, but the Claims Officer only allowed Rs. 20,000/-, contrary to the instructions issued by the department for granting Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. He granted only Rs. 4/8/- per sq. ft. for the ground floor. The claim of the petitioners for the rural house was valued at more than Rs. 20,000/-, hence they were not allotted any substantial house in lieu of the house abandoned in Pakistan. The whole claim of the petitioner was satisfied and the payment was made as far back as 1961 and a final certificate for payment was issued on August 16, 1962. The petitioners' claim was re-opened by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, on the ground that there was arithmetical mistake in the order of the Claims Officer and consequently the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated August 8, 1963 (Annexure 'B") reduced the claim of the petitioners by Rs. 41/- and reassessed the same at Rs. 19961/-. Dissatisfied from the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, the petitioners filed a revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who vide his order dated August 19, 1965, (Annexure 'C') dismissed the same. Thereafter, the petitioners made another application before the Regional Settlement Commissioner that the amount of compensation could not be recovered from him but this application too was dismissed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 20th May, 1966 (Annexure 'E'). It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No. 1 has issued a policy letter, a copy of which is Annexure 'D' to the petition. It is necessary to reproduce the same :- "I am directed to invite a reference to para 5 of the minutes of discussion held between the Chief Settlement Commissioner and you (Regional Settlement Commissioner, Lucknow) in Lucknow on 9.1.1958 and to say that it has subsequently been decided that in those cases where the claim of displaced persons are revised after the payment of compensation has already been made on the basis of original claim order, the case need not be re-opened and no recovery of over-payment need be effected unless the original claim had been verified as a result of fraudulent action on the part of the claimant".
(3.) In view of this letter, the case of the petitioner could not be re-opened and no recovery of over-payment could be effected unless the original claim had been verified as a result of fraudulent action on the part of the claimants. In the present case it is an admitted fact that no fraud has been committed by the claimants at the time of the verification of the original claim. It is mentioned in the impugned order that the case was re-opened to rectify a clerical order. I fail to understand as to how in face of the policy letter (Annexure 'D') the cae of the petitioners could be re-opened and that be singled out and deprived of the protection of this letter when in other cases the benefit of this letter has been given. There can be no discrimination and the persons situated alike are to be treated alike. Hence, I find that the respondents were not entitled to re-open the case of the petitioners. Although the error is only of Rs. 41/- but if the impugned orders are allowed to stand then the petitioners would be deprived of their whole claim as their claim then be less than Rs. 20,000/- and in that event they would not be entitled to any amount of compensation but to allotment of an evacuee house which I am sure would not be available by now. There is fallacy in the impugned orders.;