Revisional and allotment-correction powers under the Displaced Persons Act confirmed through later revenue records and entitlement review.

The commentary explains that under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, allotments made on oral verification may be corrected, varied or cancelled when later revenue records emerge. It also notes that Section 19 permits cancellation or amendment by the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer, while Section 24(1) gives the Chief Settlement Commissioner revisional power to examine legality or propriety; Section 24(2) is illustrative and does not narrow that general power. On entitlement, the land records from Pakistan, including the second Fard Taqsim and Khasra Girdawari, were treated as reliable for assessing irrigation and extent, supporting reduction where the original allotment exceeded entitlement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer and the Chief Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction to cancel or revise the allotment made in favour of the appellant's father under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. (ii) Whether the allotment was rightly reduced on the basis that the land left in Pakistan was not wholly canal irrigated and that the original allotment exceeded the entitlement.

Issue (i): Whether the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer and the Chief Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction to cancel or revise the allotment made in favour of the appellant's father under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

Analysis: The allotment had been made on oral verification and was liable to correction, variation or cancellation when later revenue records became available. The power under Section 19 enabled the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer to cancel or amend an allotment, while Section 24(1) conferred revisional power on the Chief Settlement Commissioner to examine the legality or propriety of orders passed under the Act. The presence of Section 24(2) did not restrict the wider power under Section 24(1), because the specific provision was only illustrative and without prejudice to the general revisional power.

Conclusion: The authorities had jurisdiction to interfere with the allotment, and the challenge to their power failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the allotment was rightly reduced on the basis that the land left in Pakistan was not wholly canal irrigated and that the original allotment exceeded its entitlement.

Analysis: The authorities relied on the second Fard Taqsim and the Khasra Girdawari obtained from Pakistan, which showed that the land comprised not only Nehri land but also Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin land. Those records were treated as reliable revenue records for determining the nature, extent and source of irrigation of the land. On that basis, the appellant's father was entitled to a lesser allotment than 49.2 standard acres, and the excess allotment was identified as 15-17 1/2 standard acres. The absence of corroboration from the Shud Kar records did not displace the findings, since repeated attempts to obtain those records had failed and no cogent contrary documentary proof was produced.

Conclusion: The reduction of the allotment for excess area was upheld, and the merits were decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The statutory authorities acted within their powers and their determination on entitlement was sustained, so the appeal could not succeed.

---