CW/7051/2006 of LAL CHAND Vs ASDDL.COLLECTORFIRSTCUM SETT.COMM.andORS on 20 December 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPURORDER

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 7051/2006

(Lal Chand V/s Additional Collector (First)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Sriganganagar & Ors.

Date of Order:- 20.12.2007.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Mr. Hemant Jain, for the petitioner.Mr. Vijay Bijnoria, for the respondents.Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

-BY THE COURT:

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioneraggrieved by order impugned dated 07.12.2005 passed byAdditional District Collector-cum- Settlement Commissioner,Sriganganagar, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioneragainst an order dated 08.04.2003 passed by the SettlementOfficer (Rehabilitation), Sriganganagar rejecting the claim of thepetitioner under the provisions of the Displaced Persons(Compensation And Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short "the Actof 1954"), has been dismissed on the ground that in view ofrepeal of the Act of 1954 by the Displaced Person Claims andOther Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (38 of 2005), in absence of thesaving clause therein , the proceedings cannot be continued.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the questioninvolved in the matter is no more res integra. The controversyinvolved stands settled by the decision of the Division Bench ofthis court in the matter of Laxman Singh through his LRs V/sState & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 762/1995 decidedvide judgment dated 14.09.2006).

In the Laxman Singh's case (supra) similar controversyhaving been arisen, after due consideration the Division Bench ofthis court held as under:

"It transpired in course of hearing that the Act i.e.Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act wasrepealed by the Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws RepealAct, 2005 (38 of 2005). A question arose as to whether in viewof the repeal of the enactent itself, the claim of the appellant canbe considered now. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897provides the complete answer. Section 6 lays down that whereany Central Act etc. is repealed, unless a different intentionappears, repeal shall not among other things "affect any right,privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurredunder any enactment so repealed" and " any such investigation,legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued orenforced, as if the repealing Act had not been passed". Thus, inview of the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clause Act,notwithstanding the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, the claim of the appellantbeing a pending claim has to be considered and taken to itslogical conclusion in accordance with law. "

Thus, the writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms ofthe position of law settled as aforesaid by this Court, which is notdisputed even by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugnedorder dated 07.12.2005 is set aside. The respondent No. 1 isdirected to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner in thelight of the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensationand Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, after giving an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from thedate of this order.

No order as to costs.

(SANGEET LODHA),J.