Mr. B.R. Jindal vs Shri Hans Raj And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 972 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. Rule. This writ petition is being taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.

2.The petitioner has prayed that the impugned orders dated 8.10.1999 and 29.10.1998 which have both been passed by the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner be set aside and that the case be remanded to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Appeals) being the competent authority to hear and decide appeals under Section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the ''said Act'').

3. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether an appeal preferred under Section 22 of the said Act can be disposed of by treating it as a Revision under Section 24 of the said Act?

4.The brief facts which are not in dispute are that on 21.8.1998 the Settlement Officer passed an order under Section 19 of the said Act. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the Settlement Officer and, therefore, preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the said Act. A copy of the appeal has been placed on record and it clearly indicates that it was filed before the Settlement Commissioner, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and it is further indicated that it was an appeal under Section 22 of the said Act. I need not go into the merits of the matter because that is not in issue at this stage. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 before the Settlement Commissioner in the appropriate format at the appropriate place. The petitioner has clearly stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that there is only one filing counter in the reception of Nirman Bhawan and it is at this filing counter that the petitioner presented his appeal under Section 22. The appeal was clearly addressed to the Settlement Commissioner (Appeals). There is no dispute with regard to this.

5.Unfortunately, the petitioner's appeal under Section 22 was placed, not before the Settlement Commissioner (Appeals), but, before the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, Land and Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi (Respondent No.6 herein). Instead of directing that the appeal be placed before the appropriate Settlement Commissioner hearing such appeals under Section 22 the said Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner dismissed the same on the ground that it was not maintainable and indicating in the order dated 29.10.1998 that the only ''appeals'' that could be filed before him are those under Section 24 of the said Act. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order dated 29.10.1998, moved an application, a copy whereof has also be placed on record, before the said Respondent No.6 (Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner) requesting for the issuance of necessary directions to the concerned staff for placing the petitioner's appeal under Section 22 before the Competent Authority for its disposal on merits. This application clearly indicated that the petitioner had filed the appeal under Section 22 of the said Act on 21.9.1998 against the order dated 21.8.1998 passed by the Settlement Officer. It was also stated in the application that since the first appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer lies before the Settlement Commissioner under Section 22 of the said Act, the same was filed properly and in accordance with the law and in accordance with the said Act. It was indicated therein that the order dated 29.10.1998 had perhaps been inadvertently passed treating the same as if it had been filed before the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner.

6. Upon this application the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner passed the order dated 8.10.1999. The order reads as under:-

'' Sh. R.K. Seth, Ms. Anjili Seth and Sh. B.R. Jindal have filed an appeal under Section 22 of the DP(CR) Act, 1954 against the order of Sh. Raj Singh Phogat, Settlement-cum Managing Officer in respect of Property No. BP. 5, Lajpat Nagar-III (Feroz Gandhi Road). Appeals have been preferred under Section 22 of DP(CR) Act, 1954 but I am competent to hear the same under the Section of 24 of the DP(CR) Act, 1954 being Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner. The appeals were not maintainable and the same were dismissed by me on 29th October, 1998. Further keeping in view the mere technical defect and to meet ends of natural justice, I entertained the same and have carefully gone through the whole material on record. The claim of appellant is solely based on an alleged registered lease deed which seems to have been forged and there were criminal proceedings against some officials of Department of Rehabilitation. The mere act of execution of registration of lease deed will not confer any title to the appellant as the property in question has been disposed off by the Department of Rehabilitation by open auction to one Sh. Hans Raj Narula. On the face of it, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as no new evidence or material fact has been produced disclosed before me and as such I do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of Settlement Officer already passed on 21.8.98. For the reason above, appeals are dismissed.''

7.Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that both the orders dated 29.10.1998 and 8.10.1999 are without jurisdiction and ought to be set aside. He submitted that the petitioner had clearly filed an appeal under Section 22 of the said Act. The appeal had been filed at the appropriate place and it was addressed to the appropriate authority taking up appeals. It was not the petitioner's fault that the appeal was placed before the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner who was not empowered to hear appeals under Section 22. The Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner ought not to have taken up the matter and he ought to have merely directed that the same be placed before the Settlement Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal on merits. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second order dated 29.10.1998 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 22 and not a revision under Section 24. By the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner treating the appeal as a revision petition, the petitioner has been denied a right of appeal under Section 22 which is a very valuable right. The scope of an appeal and a revision petition are entirely different. In these circumstances, learned counsel urges that the said impugned orders be set aside. I am in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 22 which was properly made and addressed to the appropriate and competent authority the same ought to have been disposed of on merits by that authority and that authority alone. Unfortunately, this is not what has happened. The Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner had passed two orders both of which were beyond his jurisdiction and are, therefore, to be set aside.

8.Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. The wit petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.10.1998 and 8.10.1999 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner are set aside. The Settlement Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to take up the petitioner's appeal under Section 22 for hearing and disposal on merits. The appeal papers be placed before the said Settlement Commissioner (Appeals) or any other officer authorised to hear appeals under Section 22 of the said Act for disposal on merits.

9. The matter be fixed before the such officer in the first instance on 15th October, 2003.

10. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.