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

Section:

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)------   ---- S. 2(4)&(12)-Order of Deputy Settlement Com missioner passed in exercise of powers conferred on him by Chief Settlement Commissioner holding property to be divisible-Cannot be set aside in appeal or revision by higher officer.   Ch. Bahar Muhammad v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilita tion Commissioner and others S L P No. 58 of 1962 (S C) rel. JUDGMENT   The dispute in this case is with regard to a part of property No. F/2377 consisting of four shops and a residential house above them. Adjoining this property is another property bearing the same number and consisting of three shops and a residential house. The petitioner, Sh. Fazal Elahi, who was an old tenant of the residential portion of the first-mentioned property, applied for its transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the Deputy settlement Commis sioner, by means of an order, dated the 18th February 1960, transferred the residential portion of the house in his favour when the matter came up in appeal, before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, be held that the value of the property in dispute was more than Rs. 10,000, and as the petitioner was a "local", it could not be transferred to him under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. In coming to this conclusion, the Additional Settlement Com missioner considered both the residential portions of the property as consisting of a single indivisible house, and as the annual rent of this property was Rs. 594, its value came to more than Rs. 10,000. The petitioner filed a revision petition against this order, and the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, by means of an order, dated the 17th October 1960, held that the portion in possession of the petitioner, which had been transferred in his favour by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, was an independent house and, as such, it was less than Rs. 10,000 in value. It was represented to that officer by the respondents that the petitioner alone had not filed an application for transfer of this house,…