Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

Section: 20,Sched.Para.9

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) [as amended]--- ----S. 20 & Sched. Para. 9---Illegal transfer---Tranferee holding Provisional Transfer Order---Misrepresentation and fraud---Power of Settlement Department to re-open such a transfer and cancel the same---Legal entitlement of transferee/respondent in the present case only extended to one property, however he fraudulently got transferred two properties in his name from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner---Property purchased by the appellant in open auction included one of properties (disputed property) fraudulently and illegally transferred to the respondent---Respondent failed to establish his entitlement to the disputed property---Revenue records showed that disputed property was part of the hotel land purchased by the appellant in public auction---When the present matter was re-opened the Additional Settlement Commissioner re-examined all the facts pertaining to the title of the respondent and also of the appellant before deciding in favour of the appellant---Transfer of disputed property in favour of respondent had been rightly cancelled by the Settlement Department. Respondent only had a Provisional Transfer Order in his favour, which contained a condition that in case the Settlement Department found that he had made any false representation, or concealment of a material fact, or fraud, it would be entitled to resume the property. Settlement Authorities had the inherent power to recall the impugned order in case of fraud or misrepresentation. Respondent had been allotted two plots, one of which (i.e. disputed plot) formed part of the hotel purchased by the appellant in a public auction. Respondent had illegally obtained two plots of land instead of one and hence the Settlement Department was entitled to cancel one of the two plots while leaving the other in his possession and ownership. Respondent could not rely upon Municipal Tax record to prove that both plots formed part of the same property, as such record was not important for establishing question of title. Revenue records showed that disputed plot was part of the hotel bought by the appellant. Settlement…