https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182075 The residuary power under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was treated as an executive, institutional function that could be exercised through authorised officers under the Rules of Business, and the order was upheld despite being passed by a Deputy Secretary, without a fresh oral hearing, and without repeating earlier reasons. The Chief Settlement Commissioner's order under Section 24(1) was also sustained because the alleged error of law was at least arguable on the record and the adopted reasons were sufficient. The Settlement Officer's reasoned finding that the property was indivisible was likewise not shown to be erroneous, and the writ petition failed. en-us Thu, 18 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 May 2016 12:48:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182075 The residuary power under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was treated as an executive, institutional function that could be exercised through authorised officers under the Rules of Business, and the order was upheld despite being passed by a Deputy Secretary, without a fresh oral hearing, and without repeating earlier reasons. The Chief Settlement Commissioner's order under Section 24(1) was also sustained because the alleged error of law was at least arguable on the record and the adopted reasons were sufficient. The Settlement Officer's reasoned finding that the property was indivisible was likewise not shown to be erroneous, and the writ petition failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182075