of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act (II of 1956)
S.5. Claim is
merely an assertion of a right to property. The claimant is not allotted any
property by virtue of his claim—Consequently claim is not a right in property
which could devolve on the heirs like other property.
Rashid Vs. Pakistan (1962) 14 DLR (SC) 41.
—S. 7. Section 7
of the Registration of Claim’s (Displaced Persons) Act 1956 clearly provides
that the decision of a Deputy Claims Commissioner is appeasable and also open
to revision and review.
Commissioner is invested not only with suo motu revisional power but also can
act on the motion by an aggrieved party.
under the Act not final but are open to revision or review by the Deputy Claims
Commissioner who possesses such jurisdiction.
Rahman Vs. Settlement, Rehabilitation and Claims Commr. (1967) 19 DLR (SC) 23.
—S. 7(3). While
ordinarily the Claims Commissioner will exercise jurisdiction with 90 (lays
under Section 7(3) of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act if he
finds that there are circumstances justifying such a course be can act even
beyond that period. Such a finding express or implied will be essential for
acting beyond the ordinary period.
Imam Vs.. Claims Commissioner (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 648.
Penalty in case of false claim.
accordance with section 14 of the Registration of Claims(Displaced Persons) Act
the Claims Commissioner can if he finds a claim to be false depriving the
claimant of the benefit which he may have received and it is correct that there
is no limitation for an enquiry under this section.
each case when proviso to sub-rule (2A) of rule 6 is invoked the Claims
Commissioner had to apply his mind to reach a conclusion that the circumstances
justify his acting beyond the ordinary period of limitation.
Md. Farooq Imam
Vs. Claims Commissioner (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 649.
of Claims (Displaced Persons) Rules
Rule. 6(2A). [See u/s 14
in case of Md. Farooq Imam vs. Claims Commissioner (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 649 above.]