http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KHILLU RAM AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/10/1975

BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

CITATION:  1975 AIR 2275            1976 SCR  (2)  78  1976 SCC  (1)  88

ACT:      Displaced  persons  (Compensation  and  Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955,  r. 30-  Effects of  its  deletion  on  pending proceedings-Retrospective effect.

HEADNOTE:      Rule 30  of the  Displaced  Persons  (Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Rules,  1955, prescribes that where property is in  the occupation  of more persons than one, it shall be offered to  the  person  whose  gross  compensation  is  the highest.      A particular  property was  allotted under this rule to the first  respondent. A  revision  petition  by  the  rival claimant, was  dismissed ill  September, 1963. But on August 13, 1963,  the rule  had been  abrogated. The  effect of the deletion was  that a property in the occupation of more than one person was to be put to sale. In an application under s. 33   of    the   Displaced    Persons   (Compensation    and Rehabilitation)  Act,  1954,  by  the  rival  claimant,  the appellant held that the case should be governed by the rules as amended,  that is,  excluding r.  30, and  set aside  the order allotting the premises to the first respondent. A writ petition filed by the first respondent in the High Court was allowed. In appeal  to this  court, the  appellant contended that the rule was one of procedure and its deletion affected only the mode of  proceeding by  which the  rival  claim  was  to  be decided.      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD: The  rights of  the two  rival claimants  must be governed by  r. 30 which was in force when the dispute arose and was decided by the authorities under the Act. [80 G-H].      (a) Rule 30 deals, not with form of procedure, but with the substantive  right conferred  by the  Act  on  displaced persons. The  Act provides  for the  payment of compensation and rehabilitation  grants to  displaced persons and matters connected therewith.  Rule 30  is in  Chapter V of the Rules which deals  with payment  of compensation  by  transfer  of acquired evacuee  properties. Assuming that the rule is only a mode  or manner  of payment  of compensation, the form and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

manner in  which compensation  is payable  is also a part of the right to get compensation. The rule is not an instrument of machinery  for asserting a right conferred by the A t. it does not  regulate the  procedure for settlement of disputes concerning that  right. Therefore,  the deletion of the rule in 1963 cannot affect pending actions, [80 D-G].      (b) Neither  by express  words nor  by implication  the amendment of  the rules in 1963 deleting r. 30 has been made retrospective in operation. [81 A-B].      Pt. Dev  Raj v.  Union of India & ors., A.I.R. 1974 Pun 65, approved.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 862 of 1968.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  6th December,  1964 of  the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No.587 of 1964.      G. L. Sanghi and Girish Chandra for the Appellants.      S. N. Anand for the Respondents. 79      The  Judgment of the Court was delivered by      GUPTA, J.  This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceeding under  the Displaced  Persons  (Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Act,  1954 (hereinafter  referred to  as the Act). The  only question  for determination in the appeal is whether the  deletion of  rule 30  of the  Displaced Persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Rules,  1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) with effect from August . 13, 1963 made any  difference to  the rights of the parties concerned in this case. The question arises on the following facts.      Shop No.  2 in  Tripri township  in Patiala  which is a government built  property was allotted in 1950 to the first respondent Khillu  Ram jointly  with one  Tara Chand and his son by  the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In 1951 both Tara Chand and  his son  Left Tripri  to settle elsewhere and the second respondent  Teju Mal  applied for  allotment of their share in  the shop  to him.  By his order dated November 11, 1959 the  Managing officer,  Tripri and  Rajpura, held  that Teju Mal  and Khillu  Ram were  in possession of the shop as allottees  respectively  of  2/3  and  1/3  shares  therein. Aggrieved by  the order  of the  Managing officer, the first respondent Khillu  Ram preferred an appeal to the Settlement officer, Jullundur, who by his order dated February 12, 1962 set aside the order of the Managing officer and remanded the case for  a fresh  decision under rule 30 of the Rules. Rule 30 is in these terms:           "  Payment   of  compensation  where  an  acquired      evacuee property  which is  an allotable property is in      occupation of  more than  one person.  If more  persons      than one  holding verified  claims are in occupation of      any acquired  evacuee property  which is  an  allotable      property, the  property shall  be offered to the person      whose gross  compensation is  the biggest and the other      persons may  be allotted  such other  acquired  evacuee      property which is allotable as may be available :" This rule  has a proviso and an explanation none of which is relevant for  the present purpose. After remand the case was transferred to  the Assistant  Settlement officer  who found that the  gross compensation payable to the first respondent was higher  than that of the rival claimant, Teju Mal and in terms of  rule 30  allotted the  entire shop  to  the  first respondent by  his order dated November 27, 1962. A revision

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

petition against  this order  made by Teju Mal was dismissed by the Deputy Chief Settlement Officer on September 5, 1963. In the  meantime,  as  stated  already,  rule  30  had  been abrogated with  effect from  August 13,  1963. Teju Mal then moved the  Central Government under sec. 33 of the Act. Teju Mal’s application  under sec.  33 was  heard on February 25, 1964. The  effect of  deletion  of  rule  30  was  that  the properties which  were in  the occupation  of more  than one person were  to be  put to  sale. The Joint Secretary to the Government of  India who heard the application under sec. 33 held that  the case  should be  governed  by  the  Rules  as amended in  1963 excluding  rule 30,  and accordingly by his order dated February 80 26, 1964  he set  aside the  order allotting the shop to the first respondent  Khillu Ram  and directed  the property  in question to  be put  to sale.  The first  respondent filed a writ petition  in the  Punjab High  Court for  quashing  the order passed  under sec. 33. The Punjab High Court held that the subsequent  deletion of  rule  30  did  not  affect  the existing rights  of the  first respondent  and  quashed  the order of  the Central  Government made  under sec.  33.  The correctness of  this ‘  order is  challenged in  the  appeal before us which has been preferred by the Union of India and several other  authorities concerned with the administration of the  Displaced Persons  (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.      The only  submission made  by Mr.  Sanghi appearing for the appellants  is that  rule 30 was a rule of procedure and its deletion in 1963 affected only the mode of proceeding by which the  rival claims of Khillu Ram and Teju Mal was to be decided. It was argued that - amendment of the Rules in 1963 deleting rule  30 being procedural in character would affect the proceeding between the two respondents then pending, and their rights,  it was submitted, should therefore be decided on the footing as if Rule 30 had never been in force. We are unable to  accept this  submission. The Act provides for the payment  of   compensation  and   rehabilitation  grants  to displaced persons and matters connected therewith. Under the Act a  displaced person  has a  right to get compensation in the form  and manner  prescribed by  the Act  and the  Rules framed thereunder.  Rule 30  is in  Chapter V  of the  Rules which deals  with payment  of compensation  by  transfer  of acquired Evacuee  Properties. Though the shop in question is a government  built property  and not  an  acquired  evacuee property, rule  43 in Chapter VI of the Rules which provides for payment  of compensation by transfer of government built property says that the "pro visions of rules 25 to 34 shall, so far  as may  be, apply  to the transfer of any Government built property  or Government plot under this Chapter". Rule 30 prescribes  that where  the property is in the occupation of more  persons than one, it shall be offered to the person whose gross  compensation is  the highest.  Clearly rule  30 deals not  with the form of procedure but with a substantive right conferred  by the Act on displaced persons. Mr. Sanghi described this  rule as  only a mode or manner of payment of compensation. This  may be  so, but  the form  and manner in which compensation  is payable  is also part of the right to get compensation.  Rule 30 is not an instrument or machinery for asserting  the right  conferred by  the Act; it does not regulate the procedure for settlement of disputes concerning that right.  Therefore, the  deletion of  the rule  in  1963 cannot affect  pending actions. The rights of Khillu Ram and Teju Mal  must be  governed by rule 30 which was in force in 1959 when  the dispute arose and was decided by the Managing

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

officer. A  full Bench  of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pt.  Dev Raj  v. Union of India & ors.(1) considering the same question which arises for determination in this appeal, held  that   "a  displaced   person  has   a  right  to  the determination  of   his  claim   for  compensation  and  its satisfaction in the 1) A. I. R. 1974 Pun. 65 81 prescribed manner  and this is a substantive right", that so far as  rule 30  is concerned  "the right  which a displaced person  claims  under  this  rule  ..  cannot  be  adversely affected or  taken away unless it is expressly stated in the amending provision,  or the language of the Act This, in our opinion, is  a correct  statement of  the  law.  Neither  by express words  nor by implication the amendment of the Rules in 1963  deleting rule  30 has  been made  retrospective  in operation.      For these reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. V.P.S.                                     Appeal dismissed. 82