TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Central Government's order under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was vitiated because it was passed by a Deputy Secretary, without an oral hearing, and without repeating reasons; (ii) whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order under Section 24(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 suffered from error of law apparent on the face of the record or want of reasons; (iii) whether the Settlement Officer's order dated 6-11-1962 holding the property indivisible was wrong.
Issue (i): Whether the Central Government's order under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was vitiated because it was passed by a Deputy Secretary, without an oral hearing, and without repeating reasons.
Analysis: The residuary power under Section 33 was treated as an executive, institutional function exercised through officers under the Rules of Business, and not as a delegated quasi-judicial power requiring special authorisation under Section 34(1). The absence of an oral hearing was held not fatal because the Act distinguished appeals and revisions from the residuary power under Section 33, Rule 105 did not apply to that proceeding, and natural justice did not invariably require a personal hearing where the party had already been heard at earlier stages. The order was also sustained because the Central Government could adopt the reasons of the Chief Settlement Commissioner without repeating them when those reasons were full and reasoned.
Conclusion: The Central Government's order was valid and not liable to be set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order under Section 24(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 suffered from error of law apparent on the face of the record or want of reasons.
Analysis: The view that no partition proceeding was pending on 31-12-1960 was considered at least arguable on the record, because the petitioner had not pursued a fresh partition application after remand. In the alternative, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had accepted the concurrent reasoning that the property was not divisible and was entitled to adopt the detailed reasons already given by the Settlement Officer. The order was therefore not shown to disclose an apparent error of law or a failure of reasons.
Conclusion: The Chief Settlement Commissioner's order was not bad in law.
Issue (iii): Whether the Settlement Officer's order dated 6-11-1962 holding the property indivisible was wrong.
Analysis: The Settlement Officer's order was a detailed and reasoned determination on divisibility, and no convincing legal infirmity was established against it. The Court declined to reappreciate the merits of that administrative determination in writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The order dated 6-11-1962 was not shown to be erroneous.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were upheld and the writ petition failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A personal oral hearing is not an invariable requirement of natural justice, and in a statutory scheme that distinguishes appeals and revisions from a residuary executive power, the Central Government may act through authorised officers under the Rules of Business and may adopt earlier reasoned findings without repeating them.
TaxTMI 
