Revisional power over verified claims extended to final orders, but conjecture-based revision failed for lack of legal evidence.

Section 5(1)(b) of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954 was read as conferring revisional power over verified claims, including claims finally dealt with under the principal Act, because the statutory definition of a verified claim covered such final orders and the preamble could not narrow clear enacting words. That revisional power also extended to valuation, and rule 18 was not confined by ejusdem generis so as to exclude valuation-related grounds. On the record, however, a revisional order based on conjectures, surmises, and no legal evidence was vulnerable as an error of law apparent on the face of the record and could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 5(1)(b) of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954 to revise a verified claim that had already been finally dealt with under the principal Act. (ii) Whether the revisional power under section 5(1)(b) extended to valuation of the claim and was confined by rule 18 of the Displaced Persons (Verification of Claim) Supplementary Rules, 1954, including whether clause (iv) of rule 18 was controlled by ejusdem generis. (iii) Whether the order of revision was vitiated by errors of law on the face of the record because it was based on conjectures and surmises without legal evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 5(1)(b) of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954 to revise a verified claim that had already been finally dealt with under the principal Act.

Analysis: The statutory language empowered the Chief Settlement Commissioner to revise any verified claim and make such order as he thought fit. A verified claim was defined to include a claim in respect of which a final order had been passed under the principal Act. The preamble could not cut down clear words in the enacting provision. The scheme of the Act and the distinction between clauses (a) and (b) of section 5(1) showed that the special suo motu revisional power was intended to extend to verified claims that had become final under the principal Act.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge failed and the power of revision extended to such verified claims.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional power under section 5(1)(b) extended to valuation of the claim and was confined by rule 18 of the Displaced Persons (Verification of Claim) Supplementary Rules, 1954, including whether clause (iv) of rule 18 was controlled by ejusdem generis.

Analysis: The final order under the claims scheme embraced both verification of title and valuation, so valuation was within the revisional field. Rule 18 expressly included gross or material irregularity or disparity in valuation, which showed that the revisional power was not confined to the narrower grounds resembling review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first three grounds in rule 18 did not form a single genus, and in any event the grounds relied on were analogous to the valuation-related ground in clause (iii), so clause (iv) was not to be restricted by ejusdem generis in the manner suggested.

Conclusion: The challenge to the scope of revision under rule 18 was rejected and valuation was within the revisional power.

Issue (iii): Whether the order of revision was vitiated by errors of law on the face of the record because it was based on conjectures and surmises without legal evidence.

Analysis: The material showed that the revisional authority had, at more than one place, proceeded on conjectures and surmises without legal evidence. The suspicious character attributed to the documents was not supported by any reliable material, and the reasoning adopted could not stand judicial scrutiny. The view taken by the learned Single Judge, which had found such infirmities to amount to errors of law apparent on the face of the record, was upheld.

Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded on the merits challenge, the order of the appellate Bench was set aside, and the matter was restored to the position reached by the Single Judge with a remand for fresh decision according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Clear statutory language conferring revisional power cannot be curtailed by the preamble, and a revisional order founded on conjectures without legal evidence is vulnerable as an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

---