***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. –

1. By this common order, I intend to dispose off afore-captioned six writ petitions involving common question of law in the background of same facts. For convenience, facts are being culled out from CWP No.9791 of 2005.

2. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners assail order dated 08.06.2005 (Annexure P-12) passed by Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Ambala and order dated 25.03.2005 (Annexure P-5) passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Kaithal along with the auction notice dated 27.06.2005 (Annexure P-13) and auction of the land on 15.07.2005 pursuant thereto. The petitioners were originally allotted land measuring 5 ¼ S.A. in Village Kheri Gulam Ali and 281 Kanal (11-13 ¾ S.A.) in Village Nagal on 06.09.1961. Later on, owing to calculation error, allotment of 195 Kanal and 19 Marlas was cancelled by Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 03.06.1970.

3. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order dated 03.06.1970 under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, 'the 1954 Act'). Vide order dated 21.01.1971, the cancelled area was reduced to 136 Kanal 4 Marlas.

4. Still dissatisfied, the petitioners approached this Court by way of CWP No.838 of 1971. This Court vide order dated 05.05.1980 dismissed the writ petitions but allowed petitioners to approach Rehabilitation Authorities to purchase the excess land measuring 136 Kanal 4 Marlas observing as under:-

"The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they be given a chance to purchase the land which is in excess according to the Department on the fixed price. The learned State counsel, Shri Gopi Chand does not have any objection, rather, he accepts the suggestion of the petitioners that the departmental authorities shall consider the request on merits whenever it is made to them. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that such a request shall be made to the Rehabilitation authorities within two months. Whenever this is made, the Department shall consider it on merits."

5. While the petitioners were in thick of lis against the cancellation of land allotted to them, Rehabilitation Department sold entire cancelled area in four sale files bearing Nos.1157/V, 1158/V, 1159/V, 1160/V. The Auction purchasers deposited 25% of the bid amount. Before the auctions could be finalized, two of the successful auction purchasers, under sale file No.1158N and 1159/V, applied for refund of their earnest money on 30.06.1972 and 11.04.1972 respectively. Later the two other bidders, under sale files No.1157N and 1160/V, also applied for refund of earnest money on 17.05.1971 and 19.01.1973, respectively.

6. Pursuant to the orders passed by Writ Court dated 05.05.1980, the petitioners approached the authorities. Tehsildar (Sales), Kaithal on 30.03.1981 passed an order transferring 7-13 ¼ standard acres, measuring 66 Kanal 8 Marlas out of total excess land measuring 136 Kanal 4 Marlas to the petitioners as per fixed Government rates. The petitioners claim to have deposited 25% of the amount as earnest money on 31.03.1981. The file was sent for approval to Government on 16.07.1984. The file got misplaced. The same was reconstructed in the year 2001. On 28.02.2001, Tehsildar (Sales) sent proposal of transfer of 66 Kanal 8 Marlas land in favour of the petitioners. The proposal was approved by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Commissioner on 27.08.2001, subject to the recovery of rent as well as charges for unauthorized use and occupation. Petitioners claimed to have deposited the remaining 75% of the sale amount on 27.09.2001 and 03.10.2001 vide Annexures P-1 and P-2. A complaint was received from an auction-purchaser. The matter was sent back to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Commissioner seeking review of order dated 27.08.2001. The petitioners filed reply to the review application, which is on record as Annexure P-4. Vide impugned order dated 25.03.2005, Annexure P-5, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Kaithal allowed the review and annulled the allotment.

7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner, (Annexure P-5) the petitioners filed revision petition under Rule 18 of State Rules of Sale of Surplus Rural Properties (Annexure P-6). Vide order dated 08.06.2005, the revision petition filed by the petitioners stands dismissed (Annexure P-12).

8. Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners, while assailing the orders passed by the authorities, submits that there is no power of review vested in the Settlement Commissioner provided under statute. The order passed by the Settlement Commissioner being without jurisdiction has been wrongly affirmed by the Revisional Authority. He relies upon ratio of law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Harbhajan Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab & Another, AIR 1990 Punjab & Haryana 237, the authority cannot review its order or decision until statute provides with such power. In order to support his contention, he further relies upon Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation LttL Vs. Mawasi & ors. Etc. etc., 2012 (7) SCC 737, Deep Chand & ors., Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab & another, AIR 1964 Punjab 249 and Guiab Ajwani & ors. Vs. Smt. Saraswati Bai & ors., 1978 AIR (SC) 326.

9. Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners further submits that he confines the relief in the present writ petitions to 66 kanals 8 marlas of land which was ordered to be transferred by Tehsildar (Sales), Kaithal as approved by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 27.08.2001.

10. Per contra counsel for the respondent-State would submit that a detailed order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Sales Commissioner giving reasons to review the order of approving sale in favour of the petitioners. High Court vide order dated 05.05.1980 granted petitioners merely a chance to purchase the cancelled land. They have no right vested in them to enforce the same by way of writ petition.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the following issue arises for the consideration of this Court:-

(i) Whether the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Commissioner is vested with the power to review his own order under the provisions of the 1954 Act;

12. In order to answer the issue, it will be apt to peruse Section 25 of the 1954 Act which deals with review and amendment of order. The same reads as under :-

"25. Review of amendment of orders. - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Settlement Officer under Section 5,from which no appeal is allowed under section 22, may, within thirty days from the date of the order, make an application in suchform and manner as may be prescribed to the Settlement Officer for review of his order and the decision of the Settlement Officer on such application shall, subject to the provisions of section 24 and section 33, be final.

(2) Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by an officer or authority under this Act or errors arising thereto from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by such officer or authority or the successor-in-office of such officer or authority. "

13. Perusal of the provision reproduced hereinabove makes it evident that it is only Settlement Officer who is vested with power to review his order. Section 3 of the 1954 Act deals with the appointment of the officers under the Act and the same reads as under :-

"3. Appointment of Chief Settlement Commissioner, etc. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Chief Settlement Commissioner, a Joint Chief Settlement Commissioner and as many Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioners, Settlement Commissioner, Additional Settlement Commissioners, Assistant Settlement Commissioners, Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers and Managing Officers as may be necessary for the purpose of performing the functions assigned to them by or under this Act and may, by general or special order, provide for the distribution or allocation of work to be performed by them under this Act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Joint Chief Settlement Commissioners, all Deputy Settlement Commissioners, Settlement Commissioners, Additional Settlement Commissioners, Assistant Settlement Commissioners Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers and Managing Officers shall perform the functions as assigned to them by or under this Act under general superintendence and control of the Settlement Commissioner. "

14. Evidently, the hierarchy of the officers as provided under the 1954 Act is from Managing Officers to Chief Settlement Commissioner. Settlement Officer and Settlement Commissioner are different ranks. Section 25 of the 1954 Act while clothes Settlement Officer with the power to review or amend his orders, there is no provision that provides such power to Settlement Commissioner. Even though Section 33 read with Section 34 of the 1954 Act provides for delegation of powers by Central Government and Chief Settlement Commissioner, but no notification has been referred to by counsel for the State to show that the Settlement Commissioner has the power to review his own order. Further, reference can be made to ratio of law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh's case (supra) wherein the following observations have been made:-

“ xxx xxx There is no power of review. Under Section 24 of the Act, powers have been given to Chief Settlement Commissioner to exercise supervisory powers of revision in respect of the decisions of subordinate officers. The power of revision is a specific power conferred upon the Chief Settlement Commissioner by the legislature to be exercised for specific purpose on specific grounds.

Section 25 of the Act deals with the review of an order of the Settlement Officer passed under Section 5 of the Act from which no appeal is allowed under Section 22 of the Act. A very limited power of review has been given to the Settlement Officer who can review the orders under circumscribed limits, no such powers can be exercised by any other officer. The Tribunals have no inherent right to review the order unless such power has been specifically conferred. This matter is settled by this Court in a Full Bench Judgment in Deep Chand v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur, (1964) 66 Pun LR 318 : (AIR 1964 Punj 249), wherein Dua, J., speaking for the Bench held thus:--

"To concede such a wide power of review would, in my opinion, introduce into judicial and quasi judicial decisions, disconcerting element of permanent uncertainty and unpredictability tending to give an impression of quasi judicial lawlessness, which I cannot persuade myself to uphold. If Courts do not possess such a wide and sweeping power, it is difficult to accede such a wide power in statutory judicial or quasi judicial tribunals."

15. In view of above, this Court finds that the order passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Commissioner, dated 25.03.2005 is without jurisdiction.

16. That apart even the Financial Commissioner noticed in the impugned order that the Settlement Commissioner has travelled beyond his jurisdiction, yet upheld the order.

17. In view of above, this Court finds that the present writ petitions merit acceptance. Impugned Orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner and that passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner are hereby set aside to the extent of claim of petitioners for 66 kanals, 8 marlas of land.

18. Writ petitions stand allowed.

19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

20. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected files.

Petitions allowed.

********