JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This case has chequered history for settlement of claim for displaced persons, original claimants, no more remains. They were forced to migrate from Pakistan to this country during the pangs of partition at the time of Independence. 3. The displaced persons, who had left their property in West Pakistan, their claims about their property were to be decided under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950"). 4. Under that Act the claim lodged by Sardar Bhagat Singh and his sons was determined at Rs. 1,63,500/- by the Claims Officer vide his order dated 4th September, 1951 under the Act of 1950. The present petitioners are grand children of Sardar Bhagat Singh and son and daughters of Sardar Jaswant Singh, who have expired during the proceedings. 5. When the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 was to expire on 17th May, 1953, a small number of claims were still pending and some revision petitions against the claims settled by the Authority under the Act of 1950 were left and disposed of. In order to dispose of the pending work and to make some incidental provision regarding pending revisions of orders already passed or which may be passed under the new law, a Bill was introduced on 23rd December, 1953 for making supplemental provision of the Act of 1954. However, the Bill could not be passed in the Session when it was moved and therefore, the Ordinance No. 3 of 1954 was promulgated, which finally culminated in the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954 (in short "the Act of 1954"). 6. The Act provided for certain definitions and conferred powers for verification of the claims and revising verified claims on the Chief Settlement Officer, as the case may be under the Act of of 1954. 7. For the purpose of understanding the scope and ambit of the provisions made under the Act of 1954 in the context of controversy at hand, it would be profitable to refer some of the definitions. 8. The "appointed day" was defined to mean the 17th Day of May, 1953 under Section 2(a). 9. The "Principal Act" was defined under section 2(d) to mean the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950. 8. The "appointed day" was defined to mean the 17th Day of May, 1953 under Section 2(a). 9. The "Principal Act" was defined under section 2(d) to mean the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950. Under Section 2(b) the "claim" was defined to mean any claim registered under the Principal Act and pending on the appointed day or any claim submitted to any authority under the Principal Act by any person migrating to India from any tribal area and pending on the appointed day and included any application filed on or before 12th December, 1952 for setting aside an ex-parte order of a Claims Officer passed under the Principal Act and pending on the appointed day, if the application was not, on the date on which it was filed, barred by limitation under the rules made under the Principal Act. 10. The claim filed by Bhagat Singh and his sons did not fall within this definition. 11. The definition clause also defined "verified claim" under section 2(f) to mean any claim registered under the Principal Act in respect of which a final order has been passed under this Act, that is to say the Act of 1954. 12. It may be noticed that claim of the petitioners filed by displaced persons, Sardar Bhagat Singh and his sons under the Principal Act, 1950 was decided on 4.9.51, therefore, it did not fall within the term "verified claim" for the purpose of the Act of 1954. 13. As the claim of the claimants was decided prior to appointed day i.e. 19.7.1953, it was decided under the Principal Act, 1950. However, the "verified claim" for the purpose of Act of 1954 means any claim registered under the Principal Act in respect of which a final order has been passed under the Act of 1954. Thus, notwithstanding the claim of the petitioners having been registered under the Principal Act of 1950 as it was not decided under the Act of 1954, but was decided under the Act of 1950, it did not fall within the meaning of "verified claim" also.For the present controversy, it would . be apposite to notice the provisions of Sections 4 and 5, which confer powers for verification of claims and revision of verified claim as under : 4. be apposite to notice the provisions of Sections 4 and 5, which confer powers for verification of claims and revision of verified claim as under : 4. Verification of claims - (1) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, a Settlement Officer shall have jurisdiction to decide such claims or such classes of claims as may, be general or special order, be transferred to him by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. (2) A Settlement Officer shall hold a summary inquiry into the claims transferred to him and, after taking such evidence and examining such documents as he may consider necessary, pass such orders as he thinks fit in relation to the verification of the claim and the valuation of such claim. (3) The decision of the Settlement Officer shall be final : Provided that the Chief Settlement Commissioner may call for the record of any case which has been decided by the Settlement Officer and may make such order in the case as he thinks fit; but no order varying the decision of the Settlement Officer which pre-judicially affects any person shall be made without giving him an opportunity of being heard. 5. Special power of revision in respect of cases decided under Act44 of 1950.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act, the Chief Settlement. (a) may, on an application for revision made to him within time by any person aggrieved by the decision of the Claims Officer, call for the record of the case and make such order in the case of he thinks fit. Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, an application for revision shall be deemed to be or to have been made within time, (i) such application was not barred by limitation on the appointed day under the rules made under the Principal Act and is filed within one month from the commencement of this Act; or (ii) such application had been filed before the appointed day and was not, on the date on which it was filed, barred by limitation under the rules made under the principal Act; (b) may, on his own motion, but subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, revise any verified claim and make such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit. (2) No order varying the decision of the Claims Officer or revising any verified claim which prejudicially affects any person shall be made without giving him an opportunity of being heard. 14. Apparently, Section 4 deals with verification of claims as defined under section 2(b) referred to above. It does not include the claims decided under the Principal Act. It refers to only claims filed under the Principal Act and pending verification on the appointed date or claims verified under the Principal Act, but had been subjected to revision petition within limitation and such revision petition was pending decision. 15. Therefore, Section 4 could not have any application to claim filed by Bhagat Singh and his sons, which has been decided under the Principal Act prior to coming into force Act of 1954 or Ordinance and also before the appointed date. No revision in respect of it was preferred or pending on the appointed date. 16. Section 5 deals with the provisions of special powers confer on the Chief Settlement Officer for revising the claims decided and verified. Sub-section (a) of Section 5 refers to the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to revise the claim on an application filed by the aggrieved person. It may be recalled here that one of the objects under the Act of 1954 was enacted, was to provide for decision of the pending revisions in respect of claim decided under the Principal Act and the definition of the claim included where any application was filed on or before 12th December, 1952 and was pending on the appointed day provided it was within the limitation on the day it was filed. 17. Apparently, clause (a) can refer to only claim as defined under section 2(a), which included such revision and application, which were pending at the time of commencement of the Act, though they were filed within limitation under the Principal Act. Clause (a) of Section 4 provided a remedy to claimants aggrieved of verification of claims under the Act of 1954. 18. Clause (b) Section 5 confers powers on the Commissioner to revise the verified claim suo moto and as has been noticed above, it refers the claims, which were pending on the appointed date and decided under the Act of 1954. While clause (a) provides remedy to aggrieved claimants, clause (b) enables the Chief Settlement Commissioner to revise verified claims. 18. Clause (b) Section 5 confers powers on the Commissioner to revise the verified claim suo moto and as has been noticed above, it refers the claims, which were pending on the appointed date and decided under the Act of 1954. While clause (a) provides remedy to aggrieved claimants, clause (b) enables the Chief Settlement Commissioner to revise verified claims. Verified claim in the context with reference to object of the Act and clear definition of term "verified claim" also refers only to such claim as defined under section 2(a) and verified under Section 4 of the Act of 1954. 19. The Act in itself does not deal with closed cases, which have attained finality. Neither the object of the Act, nor the provisions of the Act anywhere speaks about reopening of claims, which have been verified before the commencement of the Act of 1954 and about which, no proceedings were pending at the appointed date of commencement of the Act of 1954. 20. Under clause (b) of Section 5 the verified claim does not refer to claims decided under the Principal Act and against which no revision is pending at the time when the Act of 1954 came into force. 21. In the present case, no revision was filed against the claim, which was decided on 4.9.51. Therefore, neither it fell within the meaning of definition of "claim" under section 2(b) nor it fell within the meaning of definition of "verified claim' under section 2(f) as no revision was filed by the claimants against the order dated 4.9.51 passed under the Principal Act. Therefore, it did not fall within the purview of clause (f) of Section 2 so as to confer power on the Commissioner to exercise powers of revision under clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 5. 22. Yet, in the first instance the Chief Settlement Commissioner made an order on 26.2.55 revising the order dated 4.9.51 suo moto and reduced the claim from Rs. 1,68,500/- to Rs. 58,165/- without affording opportunity to claimants who were prejudicially affected by the said order. 23. This order has been made in breach of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 5 itself inasmuch as no notice was issued to the claimants affected parties nor any reasons were disclosed for proposing to revise the claim verified on 4.9.51. 23. This order has been made in breach of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 5 itself inasmuch as no notice was issued to the claimants affected parties nor any reasons were disclosed for proposing to revise the claim verified on 4.9.51. Though the petitioners had failed before the High Court, but they were successful before the Supreme Court and that case was remanded back to be decided by the Chief Settlement Commissioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the claimants. In its order dated 5th January, 1971, the Supreme Court has said : "If the authorities wanted to suo moto revise that order, the appellants should have been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed revision. The appellants should have been informed the grounds on which the valuation was sought to be revised and they should have been also informed about the material in possession of the authorities justifying revision of the valuation earlier made." 24. Pursuant to this order, another order came to be made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 19.7.71 determining the amount of revised claim at Rs. 91,110.50. This order too was subjected to a writ petition before the Delhi High Court as Writ Petition No. 887/71, which was decided on 31st October, 1983. The Court noticed that though the show cause notice was served on the claimants on March 1, 1971, after direction of the Supreme Court, in spite of observations made by the Supreme Court, the grounds on which the suo moto revision was sought and the material in possession of the authorities justifying revision of the valuation earlier made, were not supplied to the petitioners. Thus, again the order was held to be bad because of not affording a fair and reasonable opportunity to the claimants and was remanded back to the Addl. Chief Settlement Commissioner for deciding the suo-moto revision afresh in accordance with law. 25. Thus, again the order was held to be bad because of not affording a fair and reasonable opportunity to the claimants and was remanded back to the Addl. Chief Settlement Commissioner for deciding the suo-moto revision afresh in accordance with law. 25. Pursuant thereto, a notice was issued to the claimants on 3rd April, 1984 in which it was disclosed that the claim determined on 4.9.51 is proposed to be revised on the ground that it has not been verified in accordance with the instructions of the department involving method of valuation of properties as it stood on the basis of sales of some contiguous properties or similar properties in the neighbourhood or valuation on rental basis or land and building method (classification of building). 26. It may be seen that while the grounds on which it has been stated that verification of claim has not been made in accordance with the Instructions of the department involving the method of valuation, the show cause notice singularly failed to disclose the material in possession of the authorities, which could have justified revision of valuation earlier made, that is to say, what was material in possession of the revising authority to show that the determination of claim of Rs. 1,63,500/- was erroneous and was to be reduced to the specific amount of,which, material in possession of the Revising Authority suggests. 27. Be that as it may again the Revising Authority made an order dated 31.10.88 this time verifying the claim of the claimants at Rs. 1,03,564/-. 28. Having perused the order of revision it becomes obvious that the foundation of the order dated 31.10.88 is the revisional order dated 19.7.71, which has been found invalid. A decision founded on an order, which has been set aside, cannot be justified on that ground alone. 29. Obviously, without referring to the material in possession which could prima-facie relate to hold that verification of claim originally made was excessive or erroneous, basing the order revising the verified claim of 4.9.51 an order, which has been set aside without referring to any material on the basis of which a positive finding to reduce the verified claim of 4.9.51 betrays that there was no material in possession of the Chief Settlement Commissioner while he exercised power by considering that the claim verified on 4.9.51 was excessive or erroneous. 30. 30. I am of the opinion that in view of clear directions of the Supreme Court, mere reason, which weighed with the Settlement Commissioner to exercise powers of suo-moto revision, does not Inform of any positive material in his possession, which could lead to a conclusion that the claim as verified by the Settlement Officer on 4.9.51, was excessive and needed to be revised. Therefore, the order dated 31.10.88 suffers from once again form a patent breach of the conditions on which the powers could be exercised, if at all it could be, under section 5(b) suo moto for revising the claim determined under the Principal Act. 31. I may also notice here that in the first occasion the learned Single Judge of this Court doubted that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition and therefore, the issue of jurisdiction was referred to the larger Bench. The Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 12.11.2002 held that this Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition and also that the petitioners could not be non-suited on this ground in the facts and circumstances of this case at this distance of time. 32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.10.88 is quashed and it is declared that the order dated 4.9.51 determining the claim of the displaced persons predecessor in interest of the petitioners at Rs. 1,63,500;- remains valid and unaffected by the subsequent proceedings. The balance amount, which has not been paid to the petitioners, shall be paid within a period of three months with interest @ 9% with yearly rest; until the date of payment. The interest shall be calculated on the amount after adjusting the payments made from a to time under the different orders passed by the Revisional A-Al during this period.There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition allowed as above. *******