TMI Blog1969 (10) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ani. For the Respondent: B. Sen and S. P. Nayar,. JUDGMENT: Dua, J. The appellant, a displaced person from Lahore, now in West Pakistan, submitted his claim in respect of the immovable property left by him there. The claim was submitted under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act. XLIV of 1950 (hereafter called the principal Act). The property in respect of which the claim was submitted was valued by the appellant at Rs. 10 lacs. It consisted of a building 21/2 storeyed high with 12 shops and a well as also some platform etc. in Landa Bazar, in Lahore.The Claims Officer verified this claim for Rs. 8 lacs. Against this order a revision was taken by the appellant to the Claims Commissioner who on May 1, 1953 in a brief order raised the value of the verified claim to Rs. 10 lacs. The relevant part of that order reads as under I have gone through the order of the learned Claims Officer and I find that he has given a queer argument to allow Rs. 8,00,000/- to the claimant. By every method tried by him the assessment went beyond Rs. 10,00,000/- and I think he ought to have allowed Rs. 10,00,000/- as claimed by the claimant I enhance the assessment and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal with certificate. On behalf of the appellant two main points were raised before us. It was contended, in the first instance, that Shri M. S. Chaddha, while exercising the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to revise the order made by the Claims Commissioner exercising the revisional power of the Chief Claims Commissioner under the principal Act. Secondly, it was contended that there was a clear error of law apparent on the face of the record with the result that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in quashing the order of the Settlement Commissioner, and that the Letters Patent Bench was in error in allowing the appeal. While developing this ground of attack the counsel also submitted that in exercising the power of revision the Settlement Commissioner could not interfere with conclusions of fact and that he had, therefore, exceeded his jurisdiction in so doing. In order to examine the first submission we have to turn to the provisions of the Principal Act and of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act 12 of 1954 (hereafter called the Supplementary Act). The principal Act, enacted with the object of providing for the registr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause, an application for revision shall be deemed to be or to have been made within time, if- (i) such application was not barred by limitation on the appointed day under the rules made under the principal Act and is filed within one month from the commencement of this Act; or (ii) such application had been filed before the appointed day and was not, on the date on which it was filed barred by limitation under the rules made under the principal Act; (b) may, on his own motion, but subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, revise any verified claim and make such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit. (2) No order varying the decision of the Claims Officer or revising any verified claim which prejudicially affects any person shall be made without giving an opportunity of being heard. This special power of revision was conferred on the Chief Settlement Commissioner in addition to the ordinary power of revision conferred by the proviso to S. 4(3) which was similar to the power of revision conferred on the Chief Claims Commissioner, under the principal Act. The suo motu power to revise verified claims, according to the appellant's learned counsel, wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been passed under the principal Act by the Chief' Claims Commissioner. It may be pointed out that according to the statutory scheme, under s. 5(1) (a) of the Supplementary Act an aggrieved party is entitled to apply to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for revision of decisions of the Claims Officers and there is adequate provision for safeguarding the interests of the aggrieved parties from any possible injury by reason of lapse of time. The difference in the language used in clauses (a) and (b) of s. 5(1) throws sufficient light on the legislative intent. The use of the words revise any verified claim seems prima facie to extend the power of revision also to verified claims bearing the stamp,of scrutiny by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Had the Parliament intended this power to be restricted, as suggested on behalf of the appellant, then it would have expressed such intention in clear words. The statutory scheme also supports this view. Under the proviso to S. 4(3) the Chief Settlement Commissioner has suo motu power of revision from the decisions of the settlement Officers and under s. 5(1)(a) he has the power of revision on applications by aggrieved parties from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t includes valuation. This takes us to the submission that the power of revision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner is circumscribed within the four corners of r. 18 of the Displaced Persons (Verification of Claim) Supplementary Rules, 1954. This rule, of course, specifically controls the exercise of the power of revision conferred by s. 5(1)(b) and this is not disputed. Rule 18 is in the following terms : Special revision of verified claims under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5. 18. The Chief Settlement Commissioner may, while exercising the powers of special revision conferred on him by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5, call for the ecord of any verified claim and may pass any order in revision in respect of such verified claim in such manner as he thinks fit, if he is satisfied that such order should be passed on one or the other of the following grounds, namely:- (i) the discovery of any new matter or documentary evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of or could not be produced by the claimant at the time when the claim was verified; or (ii) correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which revisional power as contemplated by S. 115 Civil P.C. can be exercised, but also to include cases where there is disparity in the valuation of the claim. Quite clearly this clause is much wider in scope than Order 47 r. 1 (c). The expression other sufficient cause occurring in cl. (iv) of r. 18 has therefore to be construed in this context. When in a statute there are general words following particular and specific words, the general words are sometimes construed as limited to things of the same kind as those specified. This rule of interpretation generally known as ejuedem generis rule has been pressed into service on behalf of the appellant. This rule reflects an attempt to reconcile incompatibility between the specific and general words, in view of the other rules of interpretation, that all words in a statute are given effect if possible, that a statute is to be construed as a whole and that no words in a statute are presumed to be superfluous. Ejusdem generis rule being one of the rules of interpretation, only serves, like all such rules, as an aid to discover the legislative intent; it is neither final nor conclusive and is attracted only when the specific words e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
