http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: H.K. CHOUDHURY, REGIONAL SETTLEMENTCOMMISSIONER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI ISSARDAS KUNDANMAL MOTIANI AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/1965

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) HIDAYATULLAH, M. SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1965 AIR 1647            1965 SCR  (3)  78

ACT:       Displaced  Persons  (Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Rules,1955, r.19--If applies to agricultural property.

HEADNOTE:     The  respondent who had a "verified claim"  applied  for compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation   and Rehabilitation)  Act,  1954. He alleged that he  was  a  co- sharer along  with his brothers in agricultural property  in West Pakistan and claimed his share of the compensation. The Assistant  Settlement   Officer held that  the  alleged  co- sharers  were members of a joint Hindu family and that  t.he agricultural property was joint property. He then calculated the compensation on the joint property as per rr. 51 and  56 of  the Displaced Persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Rules 1955. The respondent thereupon filed a petition in the High  Court  under  Arts. 226 and 227  of  the  Constitution contending  that on the finding that the respondent and  his brothers   constituted   a   joint  family,  the  unit   for assessment  of  compensation  should  first  be   determined according  to  r.  19, which  makes  special  provision  for payment   of   compensation  to   joint   families,   before compensation  was  calculated. The High  Court  allowed  the petition.      In the appeal to this Court it was contended that r. 19 was inapplicable as that rule does not apply to agricultural land.     HELD: The High Court was right in holding that the  rule applied  to  the claim of the respondent in respect  of  the agricultural land. Chapter IV of the Rules in which r.19 occurs  contains  some rules  which  apply  to applications  for  compensation   in respect  of agricultural lands also. Therefore it cannot  be said that the Chapter does not deal with agricultural  lands at  all. Each rule must be considered to see whether it  has application  to  a  claim for  compensation  in  respect  of agricultural  land. So considered, there is no principle  of construction  by which the scope of the general words in  r. 19  could  be limited, so as not to  apply  to  agricultural land.   Chapter VIII of the Rules provides for  compensation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

in  respect  of verified claims for  agricultural  lands  in rural  areas  and only deals with how a unit that  has  been determined  is to be compensated. There  is nothing in  that Chapter  which modifies or overrides r.19 which enables  the authorities   to  determine  the  unit  for  assessment   of compensation in the case of joint families. [83 D-E; 85 A-F]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  89--93 of 1964.     Appeals  by special leave from the judgment  and  orders dated  August  30, 1961 and June 13, 1961 in  Special  Civil Application Nos. 440, 441,509, 510 and 7 of 1961.       K.S.  Chawla and R.S. Sachthey, for the appellant  (in C. As. Nos. 89/91 of 1964). 79     C.K.  Daphtary, Attorney-General, K.S. Chawla  and  R.N. Sachthey, for the appellant (in C.A. NO. 93/64). N.N. Keshwani, for the respondents in all the appeals. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Sikri,  J. These five appeals by special leave  raise  a common question of interpretation of r. 19 of the  Displaced Persons   (Compensation   &  Rehabilitation)   Rules,   1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is common  ground that nothing turns on any dissimilarity in the facts of each appeal. It will accordingly suffice if facts in Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1964 are set out.     The   respondent,  Lachman  Hotchand  Kriplani,   is   a displaced person from West Pakistan. He has three  brothers. They   owned  731 acres of agricultural  land  in   District Nawabshah,   Taluka Nawab Shah, Sind--now in  Pakistan.  The respondent  submitted  a claim under the  Displaced  Persons (Claims)  Act, 1950 (XLIV of 1950)--hereinafter referred  to as  the  Claims Act. The word ’claim’ was  defined  to  mean "assertion  of  a  right  to the ownership  of,  or  to  any interest  in  (i) any immovable property  in  West  Pakistan which is situated within an urban area, or (,ii) such  class of  property  in any part of West Pakistan,  other  than  an urban  area as may be notified by the Central Government  in this  behalf in the official gazette". It is  common  ground that  agricultural  land  in  Sind  was  so  notified.   The respondent’s claim was that he owned 1/4 share of 731  acres and  14  ghuntas standing in the name,  of  Fatehehand.  The Claim Officer, by order dated October 7, 1952, accepted  the claim and assessed his claim as 94-3 standard acres.     On July 2, 1955, the respondent applied for compensation under    the    Displaced    Persons    (Compensation    and Rehabilitation) Act (XLIV Of 1954)--hereinafter referred  to as  the  Compensation Act. In the application he stated that he was not a member of a Joint Hindu Family in Pakistan, but his claim was as a co-sharer alongwith three others, who had filed separate claims. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner was,  however, not satisfied with this assertion  and  after holding  an enquiry, by order dated March 3, 1960,  he  held that  the  four alleged co-sharers were members of  a  Joint Hindu  Family, and the whole agricultural land claim was  to be  treated  as  joint  property.  On  August  29,  1960,  a statement  of  account was issued to  the  respondent.  This statement showed that his claim was assessed as Rs. 10,701/- gross compensation. This figure was arrived at, as stated in the  affidavit  of the  Assistant  Settlement  Commissioner, thus:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

     "The claim was assessed for 376 standard  acres and 12 units  out  of which the petitioner had  1/4th   share.  The compensation on 376 Standard Acres and 12 Units works out to 108 Standard Acres 0-3/10 Units as per 80 scale  indicated  in Rule 51. This converted  in   terms  of money as per Rule 56 comes to Rs. 42,806/- The  petitioner’s 1/4th share would be Rs. 10,701/-".     The respondent then on October 28, 1960, served a notice on the Regional Settlement Commissioner calling upon him  to rectify  the statement of account, failing which he will  be constrained  to move the High Court under arts. 226 and  227 of  the Constitution. In this notice he claimed that  r.  20 applied to his case; in the alternative he asserted that  at least  r.  19  should  be applied  to  him.  In  reply,  the Assistant  Settlement  Commissioner informed  him  that  the calculation  had been done correctly. Thereupon, he filed  a petition under arts. 226 and 227, in the Bombay High  Court. The  High  Court  allowed the petition  and  set  aside  the statement of account furnished to the petitioner on   August 29,  1960, and directed that the respondent shall  give  the benefit  of r. 19 and determine the amount  of  compensation payable  to him in accordance with the provisions of rr. 19, 51  and  56   and  other  rules  of  the  Displaced  Persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955.     The appellant having obtained special leave, the appeals are now before us. We may mention at the outset that in  the High  Court the respondent’s counsel did not  challenge  the finding  of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner  that  the respondent and  his brothers were members of a joint family. The High Court came to the conclusion that r. 19 applied  to agricultural   land.  It found nothing in the scheme of  the Rules, or in the language of r. 19, to support the claim  of the  Department that r. 19 applied only  to  nonagricultural land.     The   learned  Attorney-General,  on  behalf   of    the appellant, challenges the conclusion of the High Court.   He has  taken us through various sections of  the  Compensation Act   of  1954  and  various  rules  to   substantiate   his contention. Let us then look at the Compensation Act and the Rules.  The  Compensation  Act was enacted  to  provide  for payment   of  compensation  and  rehabilitation   grant   to displaced  persons  and for  matters  connected   therewith. ’Verified  claim"  is defined to mean, inter alia,  a  claim registered under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act (XLIV of 1950).  It is not disputed that the claim of the  respondent verified  by  order  dated October 7, 1952,  is  a  verified claim. Section  4  provides for an application for the  payment  of compensation  in  the  prescribed  form  to  be  made  by  a displaced   person having a verified claim within a  certain period. Section 5 provides that on receipt of an application under  s.  4,  the Settlement Officer  shall  determine  the amount  of  public  dues, if   any,   recoverable  from  the applicant  and shall forward the application and the  record to  the Settlement Commissioner. It will be noticed  that  a verified  claim  registered  under  the  Claim  Act,   1950, includes  claims  to urban as well as  certain  agricultural land. Therefore, both ss. 4 and 81 5  apply  to such agricultural land as has  been  made   the subjectmatter of claim and verification under the Claims Act of  1950. Section 6 was referred to by the learned Attorney- General  but  we  have not been able to  appreciate  how  it advances his case. Section 6 gives relief to certain banking

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

companies in this way. If a banking company held a  mortgage of an immovable property belonging to a displaced person  in west  Pakistan,  and that   mortgage was subsisting  at  the date  when the claim of the banking company  was  registered under  the  Claim  Act, 1950, and the  displaced  person  is entitled  to  receive compensation in respect  of  any  such property,  the  banking  company  was  entitled  to  various reliefs,  the  appropriate relief depending on  whether  the compensation to the  displaced person is payable (1) in cash or  (2) in the form of transfer of any property, or  (3)  in any  other  form. In this section immovable  property  would include  agricultural land and it cannot be denied that  the respondent  is entitled to compensation at least in  one  of the three forms mentioned in sub. s. (2).       Section  7(1).directs the Settlement  Commissioner  on receipt  of  the application trader s. 5  to  ascertain  the amount  of compensation having due regard to the  nature  of the verified claim and other      circumstances of the case. Section 7(2) provides for the deduction of certain dues  and the  Settlement  Commissioner then makes an order  under  s. 7(3) ascertaining the net amount of compensation. Section  8 provides  the form and manner of payment of compensation  of the  net  compensation determined under s.  7(3)  as   being payable to a displaced person. Subject to any rules that may be  made,  the  net compensation is  payable  in  cash,   in government bonds, or by sale to the displaced person of  any property  from  the compensation pool and  setting  off  the purchase money against the compensation payable to him, etc. Section  8(2)  enables  rules  to be  made  by  the  Central Government  on  various  matters,  inter  alia,  the  scales according to which, the form and the manner in which and the installments by which compensation may be paid to  different classes  of displaced persons. Section 40 enables rules   to be  made  to carry out by the purposes of  the  Compensation Act.  It is not necessary to refer to other sections of  the Compensation Act.     Before we deal with the 1955 Rules, it is apparent  that ss.  4,  5,  6, 7 and 8 do not  in  any  manner  distinguish between  urban  land and agricultural land as  long  as  the agricultural land is the subject-matter of a verified claim. If  a  person  holding  a  verified  claim  in  respect   of agricultural  land  owes.public dues--and "public  dues"  is defined very widely in s. 2(d) to include all kind of  loans not  only  from  the Central Government  but  from  a  State Government also-this has to be deducted under s. 7(3). It is suggested that the  expression "net amount of  compensation" in s. 7(3) means only cash compensation but we are unable to limit  the expression  thus  in view of the scheme of ss.  4 to 8. 82     The   Central  Government  in  exercise  of  the   power conferred  by  s.  40  of  the  Compensation  Act  made  the Displaced  Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)  Rules, 1955.  Chapter I  contains various definitions;  Chapter  II deals   with  procedure  for  submission   of   compensation application and determination of public dues. Rule 3 enables a  displaced  person  having a verified  claim  to  make  an application for compensation. Rule 4 deals with the form  of application  and  Appendix  I is the  form  prescribed,  and Appendix  II is the questionnaire which has to be  answered. One question is important for our purpose. Under the heading "11.  Particulars  of claims under Displaced Persons  Claims Act, 1950" is  mentioned: "(a) agricultural land, index  no; Village/Tehsil/District;  value assessed in standard  acres; cosharers  in each property with respective shares;  if  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

property  is mortgaged state mortgage money and name of  the mortgagees".  The  rest  of the rules, upto r.  9,  in  this Chapter  deal with the scrutiny of the application  and  the determination of public dues. It is only necessary to notice r.  6(2)  which  requires a Settlement  Officer  to  send  a duplicate copy of the application to the Office of the Chief Settlement   Commissioner  for verification of the  assessed value  of the claim in respect of which the application  has been made. Under r. 10 the Settlement Officer is required to pass an order and send a copy of the order and the  original application  along  with  the records of  the  case  to  the Regional  Settlement  Commissioner.  It will  be  seen  that Chapter  II  does not distinguish  between  verified  claims relating to urban property and rural property.     Then we come to Chapter III which contains r. 11.  Under this  rule  the  settlement  Commissioner  deals  with   the duplicate  copy sent to him under r. 6(2). He  verities  the assessed  value of the claim, as stated in the  application, with  the  final  order in respect thereof,  in  the  claims record  and  returns  the duplicate  copy  to  the  Regional Settlement Commissioner with such remarks as may be relevant for  the  determination  of the  amount   of   compensation. Chapter  IV  deals with determination of  compensation.   It will  be  remembered  that  s. 5  of  the  Compensation  Act requires  the Settlement Officer to determine the amount  of public  dues and forward the application and the  record  of the case to the Settlement Commissioner, and r. 11, which we have  just  noticed, requires  the  Settlement  Commissioner (Headquarters)  to send the duplicate copy to  the  Regional Settlement  Commissioner.  Rule  12  directs   the  Regional Settlement  Commissioner  to consolidate all  these  papers. Rule  12  obviously applies to application in   respect   of verified  claims  to agricultural land. As we  have  already said,  s. 5 and r. 11 applied to such verified claims.  Rule 13  deals  with  determination of certain  dues  to  banking companies  under s. 6 and any unsecured debt payable  by  an applicant  in  respect  of which a  communication  has  been received  from  any Tribunal under s. 52  of  the  Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, 1951 (LXX of 1951).  Rule  14 directs that the public dues and the amounts referred to  in Rule 13 83 shall  be  deducted  from the amount of  compensation  in  a certain order of priority. Rule 15 reads as follows:                     "Determination   of  net   compensation;               After deducting the amount referred to in rule               14, the Regional Settlement Commissioner or an               Assistant   Settlement   Commissioner   or   a               Settlement Officer, or an Assistant Settlement               Officer,   having   jurisdiction   and    duly               authorised   by   the   Regional    Settlement               Commissioner, shall pass an order  determining               the  net  amount of compensation   payable  to               the applicant in respect of his verified claim                             and  shall    prepare  a summary  in the  form               specified  in     Appendix   VII (Abstract  of               particulars).     It  is  significant that Appendix Vii has a  column  for agricultural  land  and  a  column  for  remarks   regarding application of r. 19.    Pausing here, it is difficult to hold that rr. 12, 13 and 14 do not apply to applications for compensation in  respect of  agricultural  lands which are the  subject-matter  of  a verified claim. There    fore, we must reject the contention

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

that  Chapter IV, in which r. 19 occurs, does not deal  with agricultural  lands  at all. It may be conceded that  r.  16 does   not  apply  to  agricultural   lands.    The    scale compensation in respect of agricultural lands which are  the subject-matter  of a verified claim is expressly dealt  with else  where.  Rule  51  which provides  that  the  scale  of allotment  of land as compensation in respect of a  verified claim   for   agricultural  land shall be  the  same  as  in quasi-permanent   land   allotment scheme in  the  State  of Punjab and Patiala, and the East Punjab States Union, as set out  in Appendix XIV. The explanation further provides  that if any public dues are recoverable the allocable area  shall be reduced correspondingly. Rule 49 read  with r. 56 enables the compensation due on the verified claim for  agricultural land  to be converted into cash if a person wishes  to  have his claim satisfied against property other than agricultural land. Rule 18 expressly excludes agricultural land from  its purview.   What emerges from a consideration of these  rules in  Chapter  IV is that we must consider each rule  and  see whether  it has application to a claim for  compensation  in respect of agricultural land. Rule 19 reads thus:                     "Special   Provision  for   payment   of               compensation to Joint families--Where a  claim               relates  to properties left by the members  of               an  undivided  Hindu family in  West  Pakistan               thereinafter   referred  to  as   the    joint               family) compensation shall be computed in  the               manner hereinafter provided in this rule.                     (2)   where  on  the  26th  Sept.   1955               (hereinafter referred to as the relevant date)               the joint family consisted of:--               (a)  two  or three members entitled  to  claim               partition,               84               the compensation payable to such family  shall               be  computed  by dividing the  verified  claim               into  two  equal shares  and  calculating  the               compensation separately on each such share,                    (b)  four  or more  members  entitled  to               claim  partition, the compensation payable  to               such family shall be computed by dividing  the               verified  claim  into three equal  shares  and               calculating  the  compensation  separately  on               each such share.                    (3)  For the purpose of  calculating  the               number  of the member of a joint family  under               sub-rule  (2),  a  person who on the  relevant               date:--                 (a) was less than 18 years of age,                 (b) was a lenial descendant in the main line               of  another    living member  of  joint  Hindu               family  entitled to claim partition  shall  be               excluded:                 Provided  that  where a member  of  a  joint               family has   died during the period commencing               on  the  14th August 1947 and  ending  on  the               relevant date leaving behind on   the relevant               date  all  or any  of  the   following   heirs               namely:--                (a) a widow or widows,                       (b) a son or sons (whatever the age of               such  son or sons) but no lenial ascendant  in               the  main  line,  then all such  heirs  shall,               notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

             rule,  be reckoned as one member of the  joint               Hindu family.               Explanation--For the purpose of this rule, the               question whether a family is joint or separate               shall  be  determined with  reference  to  the               status  of  the  family on  the  14th  day  of               August,  1947  and  every member  of  a  joint               family   shall   be   deemed   to   be   joint               notwithstanding   the   fact   that   he   had               separated from the family after the date".     The   heading   "Special  Provision   for   payment   of compensation  to joint families" is general. So is  sub-rule (1).  The  word  properties’ is general  and  would  include agricultural  land. That this is the meaning is  also  borne out  if we consider the word "claim". The word "claim"  must have  reference to the claim in the application to  be  made under  s. 4 read with rr. 3 and 4, and as we  have   already noticed, the application would include a claim in respect of agricultural land if it is the subject-matter of a  verified claim.     The learned Attorney-General has not been able to  point to  any principle of construction which would enable  us  to limit  the scope of the general words in r. 19(1). His  main argument  that  no rule in Chapter IV applies to  claims  in respect of agricultural land we have already rejected. 85     The learned Attorney-General then urges that the  scheme of  the  Rules  is  to  provide  in  separate  chapters  for compensation  in respect of various classes  of  properties, and  he says that Chapter VIII provides for compensation  in respect of verified claim for agricultural land situated  in rural  area and the rules  contained in the chapter are  the only  rules that govern the grant of compensation. But  none of the rules in this chapter deals with what is t9 happen if the  agricultural  land was held by a joint family  in  West Pakistan  or if the agricultural land was held by  co-owners in West Pakistan. Even if a Joint Hindu Family is treated as a  unit for some purposes in some laws, co-owners  are  very rarely  treated  as  a unit and  it  would  require  express language   to   treat  co-owners  as  a  unit   an.d   award compensation  to them as a unit. However, r.  20  recognises the general rule and provides that where a claim relates  to property left in West Pakistan, which is owned by more  than one  claimant as co-owners, the unit for the  assessment  of compensation  shall  be the share of each co-owner  and  the compensation shall be payable in respect of each such  share as if a claim in respect thereof has been filed and verified separately.  The learned Attorney-General, when asked,  said that  even r. 20’ would not apply to a claim in  respect  of agricultural  land,  but  we are unable to  accede  to  this contention.  It  would be the height of’  inequity  to  hold this.  In other words, rr. 19 and 20 enable the  authorities to  determine the unit for assessment of compensation.  This subject is not dealt with in Chapter VIII, which deals  with how  the unit, be it an individual, a member of Joint  Hindu Family or a co-owner, is to be compensated. There is nothing in Chapter VIII which modifies or overrides rr. 19 and 20.     Accordingly, in agreement with the High  Court,  we hold that  r.  19 will apply to the claim of  the  respondent  in respect of agricultural land left by him as a member of  the Joint  Hindu Family. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.     As stated in the beginning, it is common ground that  if this appeal fails the other appeals must also fail. They are accordingly dismissed with costs. There will be one  hearing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

fee in them. Appeals dismissed. 86