ORDER (P. C. Pandit J,)-This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Arjan Lal, challenging the legality of the order dated llth of November, 1963, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, punjab Jallundur, respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner was a displaced person from West Pakistan and on his migration to India, he was allotted 51 Standard Acres and 2 3/4 Units of land in village Mohna, district Gurgaon, in lieu of the land abandoned by him in Pakistan. A part of this area was under the occupany tenants and some of was restored to the allottees who had preferential rights over the petitioner, The petitioner was, therefore, given alternative allotment to the extent of 3 Standard Acres and 3/4 Unit in villages Melva Maharajpur, Baselwa and Tajupur. Subsequently, the allotment in villages Baseiwa and Tajupur was also cancelled and for the area in these two villages, he was allotted land in villages Maharajpur, Sarohi and Chhanse. According to the State, this last allotment was obtained by the petitioner the mutation with the field staff Later on, the petitioner was given permanent rights in respect of the area allotted to him in the above-mentioned three villages, as on alternative measure. According to the petitioner, the mutation with respect to the said land was also then sanetioned in his favour and a permanent Sanad given to him out of the land in village Sarohi according to the petitioner he had sold 21 Kanals 2 Marlas in favour of Qamar-ud-din. respondent No. 4. and the rest to Aslupa, jumekhen and Isab. On 1st of October. 1963, the Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer. Palwal. respondent No. 3. made a reference to the Chief Sattlement Commissioner, Jullundur, respondent No. 2 for setting aside the alternative allotment made in favour of the petitioner in the above mentioned three villages on the basis of ceratin departmental instructions, according to which the petitioner, who was a land allottee of village Mohan, should have been given alternative allotment in that very village as sufficient area was avaiable for the purpose there According to the petitioner, the Managing Officer had wrongly stated that the land at village Mohna, was still availble for allotment. He also directed the petitioner to appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 21st October, 1963. According to the petitioner he was seriuosly ill on 21st October, 1963 and he therefore. He also directed the petitioner to appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 21st October, 1963. According to the petitioner he was seriuosly ill on 21st October, 1963 and he therefore. sent a telegram to respondent No. 2 for the adjournment of the case. He also sent an application for the said purpose, along with a medical certificate. He requested respondent No. 2 that the next date to which the case might be adjourned, be communicated to him. On 21st October, 1963, respendent No. 2 adjounred the proceedings to 11th November. 1963. On that date since the petitioner did not appear before respondent No. 2, exparte proceedings were taken against him and the impugned order was passed. The reference made by the Managing Officer was accepted and the permanent rights acquired by the petitioner, with respect to 3 Standard Acres and 3/4 Unit allotted in his name in the said three villages, were set aside. Against this order, an application under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1954 was made to the Central Government, but the same was dismissed on 8th of April 1004. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 29th May, 1964. 3. In the writ petition, a number of grounds have been mentioned for the setting aside of the impugned order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner but after hearing the counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the said order should be quashed on the ground that it was passed behind the back of the petitioner, without giving proper notice to him. In the impugned order, it was stated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the petitioner was directed by the Managing Officer to appear be ore the former on 21st October, 1963, but he failed to do so on that date and a telegram was received from him praying for an adjournment. The case was, accordingly adjourned to 11th November, 1903 and a notice was again issued to the petitioner for appearing before him on 11th November, 1963. Since he again absented on that date, ex-parte proceedings were taken against him, Rule 117 (1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 says that every order or notice made or issued under the Act or the Rules shall be served by registered post acknowledgement due. Since he again absented on that date, ex-parte proceedings were taken against him, Rule 117 (1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 says that every order or notice made or issued under the Act or the Rules shall be served by registered post acknowledgement due. It is clear from the impugned order and the return filed by the respondents that this rule was not complied with and registered acknowledgement due notice was not sent to the petitioner. It was contended by the learned Advocate General that since the Managing Officer had informed the petitioner to appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 21st October, 1963, It was then his duty to keep in touch with the further proceedings of the case before respondent No. 2. If he did not appear on 21st October, 1963, and only sent a telegram to respondent No. 2 for the adjournment of the case, he himself should have enquired about the nest date of hearing, which had been fixed by respondent No. 2 and there was no need for the Chief Settlement Commissioner to issue any notice as mentioned in rule 117 to the petitioner informing him about the next date of hearing. It is common ground that a telegram had been sent to respondent No. 2 on 21st October, 1963 to the effect that the petitioner, being ill, could not appear before him on that date. Admittedly, the petitioner was not before respondent No. 2 on 21st October 1963 when the next date of hearing was fixed. In my view, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had to inform the petitioner about the nest date by complying with rule 117 and it would not be quite correct to say that the petitioner should have himself found out the next date of hearing and present himself before respondent No. 2 on that date Assuming for the sake of argument that respondent No. 2 and fixed 22nd or 23rd of October, 1963. how could the petitioner be expected to attend on that date, when perhaps he might still he confined to bed ? 4. Moreover, according to rule 105 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules. 1953. the procedure laid down in Order XI.I of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the hearing of appeals and revisions under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Under Order XLI rule 12. 4. Moreover, according to rule 105 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules. 1953. the procedure laid down in Order XI.I of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the hearing of appeals and revisions under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Under Order XLI rule 12. Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court. unless it dismissed the appeal without hearing the respondent under Order XLI rule 11. Civil Procedure Code, has to fix a day for the hearing of the appeal and a notice of the date has to given to be the respondent so that he can appear and answer the appeal on that day. In the instant case, the Chief Settlement Commissioner was accepting the reference made by the Managing Officer against the petitioner snd it was, therefore, necessary for him to issue notice to the petitioner of the adjourned date of hearing, so that he could come on that date and represent his case before the said officer. 5. In somewhat similar circumstances, Narula, J. in Kishan Singh v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and others1 considered this point and held as under :- "It is the duty of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to act in the matter of the disposal of the revision in exactly the same manner as an appellate Court is required to act under Rules 11 and 12 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even for apreliminary hearing under sub-rule (1) of rule 11 of Order 41 a date of hearing has to be fixed of which notice must go to the petitioner before a revision petition is dismissed in limine. He is enjoined by the requirements of sub rule (1) of Rule 12 of Order 41 to fix a date for hearing the revision petition before it is accepted and an order is passed against respondent. Hearing by the Alanaging Officer and a direction by him to the parties to appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner is not enough and is no substitute for the hearing by the Chief Settlement Commissioner." 6. In this view of the matter, it is needless for me to discuss the other grounds mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition. 7. In this view of the matter, it is needless for me to discuss the other grounds mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition. 7. In view of what I have said above , I would accept this petition and quash the impugned order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and along with it the order dated 8th of April, 1964 passed by the Central Government on the petitioner s application under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. There will be no order as to costs. Petition accepted. For Citation : 1963 cur lj(sc) 105