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

Section: 19, 20

(a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 19 & 20 read with Settlement Scheme No. 1, para. 10---Order passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner not to transfer different portions of a property to occupant applicants on account of non-payment of arrears of rent by them and to put same to auction, not conveyed to such applicants---Such order suffers from inherent infirmity for having been passed in violation of para. 10 of Settlement Scheme No. 1---View of appellate and revisional authorities that applications of petitioners could not be considered on merits simply because of delay in filing appeals--- Held, erroneous. In the instant case, the petitioner who claimed to be in posses sion of different portions of a residential building, made applica tions on NCH and LH Forms for transfer of same to them. No specific order was made by the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner disposing of these forms and instead he accepted the proposal of the Settlement Inspector to the effect that the persons who bad paid the arrears of rent may be transferred their respective portions and the remaining partners for which the petitioners had not cleared the rent arrears may be included in the auction list. The portions, in the possession of the petitioners were consequently sold in auction which was later confirmed. The appeals and revision petitions which were subsequently filed by the petitioners were rejected on the ground that they were barred by time: Held, in terms of paragraph 10 of Settlement Scheme No. I the petitioners had a right to be heard by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in regard to the defect or deficiency found in their applications or in the matter of their eligibility to the transfer of the quarters in their possession. No such steps were taken by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on receiving the report of the Settlement Inspector. The slip-shod manner in which the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had dealt with this case was clear from the fact that there was no mention at all of the applications submitted by the present petitioners, and there was no conscious application of the mind to show that these applica tions…