TRIBHUBAN PARKASH NAYYAR versus THE UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 732 · Decided: 10-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

732 
TRIBHUBAN PARKASH NAYYAR 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA 
October I 0, 1969 
[J.' M. SHELAT, C. A VAIDIALJNGAM AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950-Displaced Persons (Clain1s) 
Supplementary Act, 1954-Section 5(1)(b)-Revisional Powers of Chief 
Settlement Commissioner-If extends to niatters 1vhich had beco111e finai 
under the 1950 Act-Scope of power-Di~placed Persons (Verifica:ion of 
Claims) Supplementary Rules, 1954-Rule 18, cl. (iv)-If can be cons· 
trued ejusdem generis., 
Th~ nppeI:ant, a displaced person from \Vest Pakistan, subn1itted his 
claim under the Displaced Persons (Claim5) 
Act of 1950 in re!ip.::ct of 
the' property left by him there The Claims Officer verified the claim for 
Rs. 8 lacs. 
The Claims Commissioner, in revision, raised the value of 
the verified claim to Rs. 10 lacs. 
The Settlement Commissioner, exercis-
ing the revisional po\vers of the Chief Settlement Comn1i;sioner under the 
Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954, reduced the claim 
of Rs. JO lacs to Rs. 15,000. 
In a writ petition filed by the appellant a 
single Judge of the High Court quashed the order of the Settlement Com-
missioner holding that there were clear errors of la\v on the fact of the 
record. 
It was left open to the department to reconsider the matter as to 
evaluation and come to a proper conclusion 
on 
evidence. 
A 
Let:erJ 
Patent Bench reversed the o'der of the single Judge and dismissed the 
writ petition. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that: (i) the order 
of the Se:tlement Commissioner was vitiated by errors of law on the face 
of the record; (ii) the Settlement Commissioner exercising the powe~ of 
the Chie'f Settlement Commissioner under the Supplementary Act had no 
jurisdicti9n to revhe the order made by the Claims Commission:r eo:er-. 
cising revisional power under the Act of 1950; (iii) the po\\'er of re\'i..:;ion_ 
conferred on the Chief Settlement Commissioner by section 5(1) (h) of 
the Supplementary Act \Vas restricted to the verification of the claim ~.nd 
its valuation was outside its purview and (iv) the po,ver was circum5crilJ.: 
ed within the four~corners of rule 18 of the Displaced Persons (Ver!fica-
tion of Claims) Supplementary Rules, 1954. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: {i) The learned single Judge 
\Vas right 
in his cont:lu5ions. 
The order and the material on record show that the Settlement Commis-
sione·r had, at more places than one, based his conclusions on pure con-
jectures and surmises without there being any legal evidence ·on the rec,Jrd 
to support them. 
(ii) The language used in Section 5(1)(b) of the Supplementary Act 
is unambiguous and it clearly empowers the Chief Settlement Commis-
sioner, subject to· any rules that may be made, to revise any verified claim 
and make such orders in relation thereto as he th!11ks ·fit. 
On a plain 
reading of the section in the light of the defir:~ion of the 
expre~sion 
"verified claim" and the st:itutory scheme •. the Chief Settlement Commis-
sioner's special po1Ver of revision would exteud to suo 1notu revision of 
the verified claims which had become final under the Act of 1950 as a 
result Of orders made by the Claims Con1missioner on revision. 
The use 
of the words "revised any verified claim
1
' seem prima facie to extend the 
power of revision also to verified claims bearing the stamp of scrutiny by 
the Chief Settlement Commissioner. There being no doubt as to the mean-
-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
'p 
G 
H 
T. P. NAYYAR v. UNION (Dua, ].) 
733 
fog of s. 5 ( 1) (b) the preamble cannot be used to control or qualify its 
unambiguous language. 
[737 A-Fl 
(iii) The definition of verified claim in s. 2(f) elf the Supplementary 
kt speaks of the final order arid it includes valuation. The Claims Officer 
under the Act has also to value the claim and the final order embraces. 
both ve·rificatfon o'f title and valuation. 
[738 G-HJ 
' 
(iv) The categories contained in clauses (i) to (iii) of"rule 18 do .not 
form a genus or a class with the result that the expression other su.!fi.c1ent 
reason" occurring in cl. (iv) of. this rule would not attract the e1usdem 
generis rule for its constrbction. But a5suming that the first t~ree ~Jaus~ 
eonstitute a class or kind of objects or genus, the grounds given ~y th.e 
Settlement Com.missioner are analogous to cl. "(iii) which speaks o:.t gross 
and material irregularity and disparity in the evaluation of the claim. 
[741 
HJ 
[The case was 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.