http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: THE REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUNDERDAS BHASIN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/04/1962

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA

CITATION:  1963 AIR  181            1963 SCR  (2) 534

ACT: Rehabilitation  of Displaced persons-Compensation for  rural buildings-Not payable for rural building valued at less than Rs. 10,000-More than one rural building each valued as  less than Rs. 10,000-Whether value can be added up to reach total of   Rs   10,000-Displaced   Persons   (Compenssation    and Rehabilitation), Rules, r. 65.

HEADNOTE: The respondent, a displaced person, had agricultural land as well  as  houses  in  the rural area in  what  is  now  West Pakistan.   Each house was valued at less than Rs.  10,000/. but  the  total value of all the houses was  more  than  Rs. 10,600/He  was  allowed 2-1/2 acres of land in lieu  of  the agricultural land left by him.  He applied for  compensation for the rural houses.  This claim was rejected on the ground that it was barred by r. 65 Displaced Persons  (Compensation and  Rehabilitation)  Rules.  Rule 65(2) provided  that  any person  to whom less than 4 acres of agricultural  land  had been allotted shall not be entitled to receive  compensation separately  in  respect of any rural building  the  assessed value  of which was less than Rs. 1O,000/-.  The  respondent contended that in order to determine the limit of Rs. 10,000 in  r. 65(2) the value of all the rural buildings should  be added up. Held, that r. 65(2) applied to the case- and the  respondent was  not entitled to compensation for the rural houses  left by  him in Pakistan.  When r. 65(2) speaks of  any  building the  assessed  value of which is Rs. 10,000/- it  refers  to each building being of less than that value; does not                             535 contemplate  the  adding up of the value of  more  than  one building.   The  complaint  that no  compensation  had  been provided  for buildings valued at less than Rs.  10,000  was not  correct.   For  such  cases  r.  57  provided  for  the allotment  of  a  house or a site  with  building  grant  in addition to the agricultural land.  Under the Inter-Dominion Agreement  it  was decided to treat buildings of  a  certain value  as substantial and buildings of lower value  as  mere

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

appendages  to agricultural land, the Rules give  effect  to that agreement. Chanapdas  Mukhi  v. Union of India, I.L.R. (1960)  1  Punj. 153, approved. Totaram  Teckchand v. H. K. Choudhary, A. I.R.  (1960)  Bom. 528, not approved. Makhanlal  Malhotra v. Union of India (1961) 2  S.C.R.  120, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 294 of 1960. Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated October 3, 1958, of Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil  Writ Case No. 39 of 1957. H.   N.  Sanglal, Additional Solicitor General of India,  M. S. Bindra and P. D. Menon, for the appellants. Naunit LaL, for the respondent. N. N. Keswani, for the intervener. 1962.  April 27.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOOO,  J.-The  short question raised in this  appeal  by special leave is whether it is possible to add up the  value of more than one rural building, each of which is less  than Rs.10,000/- or Rs.20,000/in order to reach the total of  Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of taking the  case for  compensation  for rural buildings out of the  ambit  of r.65  of  the  Rules  framed  under  the  Displaced  Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 536 (44  of  1954) (hereinafter referred to as  the  Act).   The brief  facts  necessary  for this purpose  are  these.   The respondent  is a displaced person who migrated from what  is now part of West Pakistan to India.  It appears that he  had agricultural land as well as houses in the rural area in the place from where he migrated.  He was allowed 2-1/2 acres of land in the Punjab in lieu of the agricultural land left  by him  in  what  is now Pakistan.  In addition  he  also  left behind  a house and a shop.  He claimed Rs.  12,000/for  the house  and  Rs. 8,000/- for the shop as  compensation.   The Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed his claim to  the extent of Rs. 6,674/- for the house and Rs. 6,120/- for  the shop,  the  total  thus coming to  Rs.  12,796/-.  This  was adjudged in March 1955.  Thereafter, the respondent made  an application  to the Settlement Officer Jaipur in March  1956 for  compensation  under  the Act.  This claim  of  his  was however rejected. by the Assistant Settlement Officer Jaipur on the ground that it could not be entertained in view of r. 65 of the Rules, as he was allotted agricultural land to the extent of 2-1/2 acres.  The respondent then appealed to  the Regional Settlement Commissioner who upheld the order of the Assistant  Settlement  Officer.  Thereafter  the  respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan and the main contention raised by him there was that in order to determine the limit of Rs. 10,000/- provided in r. 65(2) the value  of  all the rural buildings left by him  in  Pakistan should  be  added,  up and if the total  is  more  than  Rs. 10,000/-  he is entitled to compensation.   This  contention has been accepted by the High Court which directed that  the respondent  should  be  paid compensation to  which  he  was entitled under the Rules for the rural buildings left by him the value of which collectively was more than Rs.  1O,000/-. It  is  this  order of the High Court  which  is  challenged before us in the present appeal.  537

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

It  may be mentioned that this question has been  raised  in three  High Courts.  The Punjab High Court, by a Full  Bench decision in Chanan das Mukhi v. the Union of India (1)  held that in order that a person may be entitled to  compensation for rural buildings left in Pakistan and thus take the  case out  of  the ambit or r. 65 it is necessary that  the  rural buildings  left  by him should each be of the value  of  Rs. 10,000/-  or Rs. 20,000/- or more, as the case may  be,  and that  a displaced person is not entitled to compensation  if he has left more than one rural building, the value of  each being  less  than Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/-,  though  the total  value of such buildings left by him may be more  than Rs.  10,000/-  or  Rs. 20,000/-, as the ease  may  be.   The Bombay High Court on the other hand where a similar question was  raised  has taken the same view as the  Rajasthan  High Court  in Totaram Teckchand v. H.K. Choudhari (2).  What  we have  to determine therefore is which of these two views  is correct.               Rule 65 is in these terms               "65.  Separate compensation for rural building               not to be paid in certain cases.               (1)   Any person to whom four acres or more of               agricultural land have been allotted shall not               be entitled to receive compensation separately               in respect of his verified claim for any rural               building  the assessed value of which is  less               than Rs. 20,000/-               (2)   Any person to whom less than four  acres               of agricultural land have been allotted, shall               not   be  entitled  to  receive   compensation               separately  in respect of his  verified  claim               for  any rural building the assessed value  of               which is less than Rs. 10,000/-.               (1) I.L.R. [1960] 1 Punj. 153.               (2) A.T. R. [1960] Bom. 528.               538 Though the point in dispute in the present appeal arises  on r. 65 (2), it is clear that what we say about r. 65 (2) will equally apply to r. 65 (1), the only difference between  the two sub-rules being that in one case the value of the  rural building, is Rs.20,000/while in the other it is Rs. 10,000/- and  in one case the allotment of agricultural land is  four or more acres and in the other case of less than four acres. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that r. 65 was framed primarily  in  pursuance of an inter Dominion  agreement  by which  it was agreed that no compensation should be  payable for   a  rural  building  where  its  value  is  less   than Rs.20,000/-.  It is further urged that the reason  for  this rule  was that a rural building worth less  than  Rs.20,000/ was treated as an adjunct to the agricultural land left by a displaced  person  in Pakistan and it was  decided  to  give compensation  for any rural building which was less than  Rs 20,000/-  in  value by other ways and not  as  compensation. This  other way is provided in r. 57 of the Rules.  Rule  57 provides that a displaced person having a verified claim  in respect of agricultural land who has settled in a rural area and  to  whom agricultural land has been  allotted,  may  be allotted a house in addition to such land.  The rule further provides  that where no house is available for allotment  in the village in which the land is allotted, the allottee  may be  granted, if he has been allotted agricultural  land  not exceeding  ten standard acres, a site measuring  400  square yards  and a building grant of Rs.400/-, and if he has  been allotted agricultural land exceeding ten standard acres  but not exceeding 50 standard acres, a site measuring 400 square

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

yards  and a building grant of Rs. 600/- and if he has  been allotted agricultural land exceeding ten standard acres  but not exceeding 50 standard acres, a site measuring 600 square yards and a building grant of Rs. 600/-.  It is said that r. 57 thus provides                             539 for compensation where a building left by a displaced person in Pakistan is less than Rs.20,000/or Rs. 10,000/- in  value as  the case may be.  Further, it is pointed out that  there is another provision in the Rules, namely r. 97, which deals with  certain contingencies where the allottee  has  refused the  allotment of agricultural land or where such  allotment has  been cancelled.  It is therefore urged that when r.  65 provides  that no compensation would be given for any  rural building   which   was  worth  less  than   Rs.20,000/-   or Rs.10,000/-  it referred to the value of each  building  and the  case could not be taken out of the ambit of r. 65 if  a displaced  person bad left more than one rural building  and the value of all such buildings was more than Rs.10,000/- or Rs.20,000/- taken together.  The reason for this,  according to the appellant, is the provision in r. 57. On  the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the  respondent that if r. 65 is not unambiguous on this point and can  have two  meanings, it should be so interpreted as to favour  the displaced  person so that he may get some  compensation  for the  rural  buildings left by him in Pakistan, It  is  urged further that the words "any rural building" in r. 65  though in singular, can be read in plural also in view of s. 13  of the General Clauses Act, and that they should be so read  in order to help the displaced person in getting compensation. In order to decide between the two rival contentions we have to see the background in which r. 65 came to be framed,  for it is that background which will help in determining one way or the other its proper interpretation.  Rule 65 came up for consideration  in  this  Court  once  before,  when  it  was challenged  as  ultra  vires on the ground that  it  made  a discrimination between rural building for which compensation was payable only if they were 540 above   certain   value  and  urban  buildings   for   which compensation  was payable, if they were of any  value.   The constitutionality  of  r.  65 was upheld by  this  Court  in Makhanlal Malhotra v. The Union of India (1).  In that, case this  Court went into the background which  was  responsible for the apparent discrimination between rural buildings  and urban  buildings.  At an inter-Dominion  Conference  between the  Governments  of  India and  Pakistan  held  at  Karachi between January 10 and 13, 1949, a permanent  inter-Dominion Commission   was  set  up  to  consider  the   question   of administration,  sale  and transfer of evacuee  property  in both  the  Dominions.   In persuance of  this  decision  the question  in respect of shops and houses in rural areas  was considered  by the Commission at New Delhi on March  II  and 13, 1949.  It was recommended at this meeting that buildings in  rural areas of value of Rs. 20,000/- or more  should  be considered  to  be substantial buildings and  the  buildings which  were of lesser value than that were to be treated  as appendages  of  agriculture  land and as  such  were  to  be treated  as "agricultural properties".  This shows that  the basis  for  purposes  of value was the build.  ing  and  the ownership of the building had nothing to do with this limit. It  is this agreement which in substance is the basis of  r. 65  though the rigor of this agreement has been softened  by making  provisions of two kinds one for those to  whom  four acres or more were allotted and the other for those to  whom

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

less than four acres were allotted and the limit was kept at Rs. 20,000/- in the case of the former while it was  reduced to  Rs. 10,000/-in the case of the latter.  But it is  clear from the agreement of March 1949 that compensation was to be provided  for an individual buildings worth  Rs.  20,000/-or more and other buildings of less value were to be treated as appendages  to  the agricultural land owned by  a  displaced person in Pakistan. (1)  (1961) 2 S.C.R. 120.                             541 The  intention behind the agreement obviously was  to  treat only  buildings  which  were  individually  more  than   Rs. 20,000/-  as  substantial buildings for  which  compensation would  be  granted while other buildings each of  which  was less  than  that value would not be  considered  substantial buildings  but  would  be treated as  merely  appendages  to agricultural  properties.   This value of Rs.  20,000/-  has been reduced to Rs. 10,000/- in r. 65 for those to whom less than four acres was allotted, but this change is subject  to the  same  limitation i. e., where  an  individual  building worth  either Rs. 10,000 in one case or Rs. 20,000/- in  the other was left in Pakistan compensation would be payable for that building as such: but where an individual building left in  Pakistan was less than Rs. 20,000/- or Rs 10,000/as  the case  may  be,  no  compensation would  be  payable  for  it separately even though more than one such building may  have been left behind by the same displaced person That seems  to be  the  scheme which was evolved under the Act  for  giving compensation  to  displaced person.  The general  rules  for payment  of compensation are to be found in Chapters  IV,  V and VI of the Rules.  Further, r. 44 in Chapter VII provides for  allotment of acquired evacuee houses in rural areas  in lieu  of compensation Rule 47 then provides for  payment  of compensation  under Chap.  VII subject to the provisions  of r.   65.   It  is  clear  therefore  that  the   scheme   of compensation provided under the Rules is that where a person has  left  both  agricultural land and  rural  buildings  in Pakistan he was to be allotted agricultural land and for any rural  building which he might have left and each  of  which might  be less than Rs. 10,000/-or Rs. 20,000/- in value  he was  to  get what is provided by r. 57.  But where  any  one rural building left by him was worth more than Rs.  20,000/- or   Rs.  10,000/-  as  the  case  may  be,  he  would   get compensation  separately.  The argument therefore on  behalf of the respondent which 542 to  have impressed the High Court that no  compensation  was given  to  displaced  persons  for  buildings  less   ’-)ban Rs.20,000/-  or  Rs. 10,000/ , as the case may  be,  is  not borne  out by the Rules.  We have already referred to r.  57 in  this  connection and reading that with r.  65  it  seems clear  that  in view of the inter  Dominion  agreement,  the scheme was that where an individual building was worth  more than   Rs.20,000/  or  Rs.10,000/-  as  the  case  may   be, compensation would be payable separately under Chapters  IV, V  and VI of the Rules.  Further, under Chap.  VII  required evacuee  houses  in rural areas may be allowed  in  lieu  of compensation.   But  if each individual building left  by  a displaced person was less than Rs.20,000/- or Rs.10,000/- as the  case may be, though he may have left more than  one  he would  be compensated by allotment of a house or  site  with building   grant  in  addition  to  agricultural   land   as contemplated  in  r. 57.  The complaint  therefore  that  no compensation has been provided for a displaced person  where each  building left by him was less than  Rs.20,000/-or  Rs,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

10,000/-  as the case may be, is not correct, though it  may be  that  in  the  case of each  building  worth  less  than Rs.20,000/or Rs. 10,000/- the compensation may not be as  in the  case of each building worth more than Rs.  20,000/-  or Rs. 10,000/- as the case  May be. The Problem however raised by the migration from that is now West Pakistan to India. was so vast that it required all the strength and ingenuity on behalf of the Government of Punjab and the Government of India to meet it and the various taken steps for that purpose are to be found in Chap.  1 of  "Land Settlement  Manual"  by  Tarlok Singh, which is  a  book  of undoubted authenticity and value in this respect.  It is  in that  background  and with the inter-Dominion  agreement  of March  1949  in  view that we have to  approach  the  inter- pretation of r.65. It is clear in that background 543 that  when r. 65 speaks of any rural building  the  assessed value of which is less than Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 10,000/-  it speaks  of  each building being of that value  and,does  not contemplate  to  talling  up of the value  of  a  number  of buildings  which a displaced person might have  left  behind and  the total value of which might be Rs. 20,000/-  or  Rs. 10,000/as the case may be.  As was pointed by the Full Bench of  the  Punjab High Court it is not correct to say  that  a person owning a building in a nonurban area worth less  than the minimum mentioned in the rule receives no  compensation, and the fact is that every displaced person owning houses or buildings  in a rural area has been compensated under r.  57 and the only buildings left out of consideration were  those each  of  which  was worth Rs.  20,000/-  or  Rs.  10,000/-. Reference in this connection may be made to Chap, IX of  the "land settlement Manual" by Tarlok Singh, where this  matter has  been  explained  in detail.   Therefore  r.  57  having provided for compensation for each building worth less  than Rs.  20,000/-  or  Rs. 10,000/- as the case may  be,  r.  65 specifically   prohibits  separate  compensation  for   such buildings.  Therefore, when r. 65 speaks of any building the assessed  value of which is Rs. 20,000/-or Rs.  10,000/-  it refers  to each building being less than that value, as  the case may be. So far as the respondent is concerned, he would also, if  he so  desired,  have been allotted either a house  or  a  site under r. 57 if he had decided to settle down in the  village in  which he had been allotted agricultural land.  It  seems however that he did not settle in that village and therefore could not get the advantage of r. 57.  That was however  his choice  and  he  cannot  complain that he  is  not  made  it impossible for an allotment under r. 57 being made to him by not  setting down in the village in which agricultural  land was allotted to him.  We cannot however give a meaning 544 to r. 65 inconsistent with the scheme which has been evolved for meeting this vast problem simply because the  respondent (or  those  like him) did not chose to settle  down  in  the village in which he had been allotted agricultural land.  If he  did  not do so and in consequence he has  suffered  some loss,  the loss is of his own choice; and that is no  reason for  interpreting r. 65 in such a way as to benefit  persons (like the respondent) who by their own choice did not  avail of  the  benefit  which they would have  got  under  r.  57. Reading  r.  65  in the background in which it  came  to  be prescribed there Can be no doubt that when it speaks of  any rural building the assessed value of which is Rs.  10,000/or Rs.  20,000/-  as  the  case  may  be,  it  speaks  of  each individual building worth that much; it does not provide for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

totaling up the value where a displaced person may have left more   than   one  building  in  West  Pakistan.    In   the circumstances  s.  13 of the General Clauses Act  would  not apply.   That  section  specifically  lays  down  that   the singular  would include the plural unless there is  anything repugnant  in  the subject or context.  What  we  have  said above  would  clearly show that considering the  subject  in this  case and the context in which the word "building"  has been  used,  it is the building that has to  be  taken  into account in determining the limits in r, 65 and not the  owne reship of the building.  Where the building itself is  worth Rs.  20,000/- or Rs. 10,000/- or more, as the case  may  be, the  case would be, taken out of r. 65. But there is in  our opinion  no  warrant in the context for  building  that  the ownership has to be taken into account and if an owner has a number  of buildings, each less than the  prescribed  limit, the  value  of  such  buildings  can  be  totalled  up   and compensation  claimed if the total is above  the  prescribed limit.   We are therefore of opinion that the view taken  by the High Court is incorrect and                             545 this appeal must be allowed.  We therefore allow the  appeal and  set aside the order of the High Court and  dismiss  the writ  petition.   The  High Court allowed no  costs  to  the respondent.  We think in the- circumstances that the parties should bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.