CW/89/2007 of PRITHVI RAJ Vs STATE and ORS. on 20 December 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPURORDER

Prithvi Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors(S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 89/2007)

Date of Order:- 20.12.2007.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, for the petitioner.Mr. H.K. Jain for the respondent no.9.Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

-BY THE COURT:

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioneraggrieved by order dated 18.09.06 passed by DivisionalCommissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner, whereby an appealpreferred by the petitioner against an order dated 19.02.04passed by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Hanumangarh, hasbeen dismissed on the ground that in view of repeal of theDisplaced Persons (Compensation And Rehabilitation) Act, 1954(in short "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.Accordingly, a contempt petition no. 1/2004 pending before theAppellate Authority was also ordered to be dropped vide yetanother order dated 18.09.06.

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 is repealed, unless a different intentionappears, repeal shall not among other things "affect any right,privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurredunder any enactment so repealed" and " any such investigation,legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued orenforced, as if the repealing Act had not been passed".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 appellant being 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 impugnedorders dated 18.09.06 (Annexure 2 and 3) are set aside. Therespondent No. 1 is directed to decide the appeal preferred bythe petitioner in the light of the provisions of the DisplacedPersons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, aftergiving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a periodof four months from the date of this order.

No order as to costs.

(SANGEET LODHA),J.