Case: Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner Delhi And Ors

Nanak Chand, father of the appellant was a displaced person from West Pakistan where he had left agricultural lands in village Chhota Bhukh Autar, tehsil Bahawal Nagar, district Bahawalpur. After the partition of the country his claim bearing Index No.9 was verified in his name for 26 standard acres 12 units. Nanak Chand disappeared sometime in December, 1954 and a report about his disappearance was lodged by the appellant?s brother Dewan Chand, arrayed in this appeal as respondent No. 2, on 25th December, 1954 with the local police, Malhout, district Ferozepur, Punjab. An enquiry was made by the police in the matter and ultimately the police gave out that Nanak Chand could not be traced3. In the year 1956 a notice was issued in suo moto revision in regard to the verified claim referred to above, by the Additional Settlement Commis-sioner, Delhi to Nanak Chand, claimant. As Nanak Chand could not and did not appear in compliance with the notice, the eldest brother of the appellant, namely, Dewan Chand, appeared before the Additional Settlement Commis-sioner, Delhi on October 25, 1956 and alleged that Nanak Chand had died leaving behind three sons, namely, Dewan Chand, Prabhu Dayal and Ashok Kumar (minor) as the only legal heirs of the deceased4. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 27th October, 1956 allowed the application for substitution and directed Dewan Chand, Prabhu Dayal and Ashok Kumar alone to be brought on the record as legal representatives of the deceased Nanak Chand, although Nanak Chand had left behind the aforesaid three sons, three daughters, namely, Satnam Devi, Lajwanti and Smt. Raj Rani, and his widow Smt. Chandan Bai5. Prabhu Dayal, one of the three sons of Nanak Chand died in 1961 leaving behind his daughter Santosh Kumari. His widow Smt. Lajwanti applied for being substituted as an heir of the deceased along with her minor daughter Santosh Kumari. In 1964 the mother of the appellant also applied to the settlement Officer that she and her three daughters may also be substituted as heirs and legal representatives of Nanak Chand, deceased re-garding payment of compensation in respect of the verified claim. They also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution and for initiating proceedings under Section 9 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The Settlement Officer concerned recommended for condonation of delay in his report dated 24th March, 1964 to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan with the delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, who by his order dated 6th April, 1964 condoned the delay and directed that the case may be processed and finalised according to rules6. When the relevant record was received by the M.O./S.O. Rajasthan, the appellant?s mother alleged that the previous order of substitution of heirs of Nanak Chand, deceased, had been obtained by fraud andmisrepresentation. by his order dated November 16, 1964, dismissed the application of the mother of the appellant on the ground that the previous order dated 27th October, 1956 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner declaring only three sons of Nanak Chand deceased as his heirs, to the exclusion of deceased?s widow and daughters was never challenged by way of an appeal or revision, so the said order had assumed finality. He, therefore, declined to interfere and refused to grant redress. The mother of the appellant on her own behalf and on behalf of her three daughters, including the appellant, filed an appeal in the Court of the Regional Settlement Commissioner which came up before Shri S.S. Govilla, S.O. with delegated powers of Regional Settlement Commissioner (Rajasthan) and he by his order dated 22nd December, 1964 dismissed the same7. The mother of the appellant undaunted by the failures, filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which came up for hearing before Shri D.N. Vohra, Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, and he also took the view that the order dated 18th December, 1954 passed by the Additional Settlement Commis-sioner had become final and he had no jurisdiction to revise or amend the said order, and accordingly he dismissed the revision. Thereafter the mother moved the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 on her own behalf as well as on behalf of the appellant but the application was dismissed by the Central Government, Ministry of Rehabilitation. On 30th August, 1965 the appellant also filed a revision against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Supplementary) Verification of Claims Act, 1954, but this also met with the same fate on 25th September, 1965 without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant8. The appellant eventually filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi giving rise to the present appeal against the orders dated 25th September, 1965, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Delhi whereby he confirmed the order dated 27th October, 1956 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, refusing to substitute the appellant as legal heir of Nanak Chand, deceased. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 7th January, 1970. The appellant unsuccessfully filed a letters patent appeal which was dismissed on 29th January, 1970. Feeling aggrieved the appellant applied for a certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution, which was granted. This is how the appellant has come to this Court.

Reasoning: 15. In the instant case a certificate by certain respectable person of the place where the family once resided does not satisfy the requirements of Section 35 of the evidence Act. There is no proof that any statutory duty was cast upon the person issuing the certificate to keep a record of birth and death and there-fore, the certificate of death has no evidentiary value. It is very easy for a person to obtain death certificate from the so called respectable persons in order to grab the property. If according to Dewan Chand, Nanak Chand had died he must also indicate where did he die and it is the place of his death which will be relevant and not the place of his birth or residence. The certificate obviously is not of the place where Nanak Chand died. We are of the view the authorities have gravely erred in relying upon the certificate of death which was inadmissible in evidence19. The interest of Nanak Chand shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. In view of Explanation I of S. 6, Nanak Chand would have got l/5th interest on partition between him and his wife and three sons. If once the interest of Nanak Chand is determined to be l/5th before his death, his interest would devolve upon his widow, three sons and three daughters equally and thus the share of each one of them would be 1/5 x 1/7, that is, l/35th each. The claim of these heirs cannot be denied merely because some of them have not advanced the claim. When the question of determination of share among the heirs crops up before the Court, the Court has to see that every heir gets his due. Shri Itorora appearing for the respondents could not successfully meet the point raised on behalf of the appellant.