Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ishab vs Deendar And Ors on 1 May, 2013
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
Ishab Vs. Deendar @ Chutmal & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2670/2007) Date: May 01, 2013. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. N.K. Maloo, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.K.Tamoliya, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K. Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Mathur, for respondents No.1to5.
Mr. N.S. Yadav, for respondent No.9.
Mr. N.K. Maloo, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the issue in this writ petition is fully covered by the division bench judgment in Ram Singh Vs. District Rehabilitation Officer [2008 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 396], wherein it has been held that except to the extent excluded or otherwise limited by the saving clause of a repealing statute, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1954 would apply to pending proceedings under a repealed Actin this case the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 (hereinafter `the 1954 Act'). Consequently proceeding initiated under the said Act before its repeal would not lapse with the coming into force of the Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005, which in terms of Section 2 thereof repeals at serial No.5. The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 amongst others and has no saving clause. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would therefore be operational wholly and fully. Counsel submits that consequently the revision petition under Section 33 of the 1954 Act filed before 2005 and pending at the time of coming into force of the Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 could not have been abated as has been held by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner under its order dated 18-9-2006 and needs adjudication as per the Act of 1954.
Mr. R.K. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1to5 as also Mr. N.S. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.9, Virendra Kumar, (the subsequent purchaser) could not controvert the aforesaid legal position as enunciated in the case of Ram Singh (supra).
Consequently, I would allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the order dated 18-9-2006 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Bikaner and simultaneously direct reconsideration of the revision petition and decision thereon afresh on merits in accordance with the Displaced Person Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 and other applicable laws extant at the time of filing of the revision petition.
As the matter, now in revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner Bikaner pertains to 1983, the Divisional Commissioner Bikaner is directed to decide the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The respondent No.9, Virendra Kumar, the subsequent purchaser would be free to move an application for impleadment in the revision petition and the same shall be decided on its filing by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner in accordance with law.
(Alok Sharma),J.
arn/ All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.