LexH. K. CHOUDHURY, REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER versus SHRI ISSARDAS KUNDANMAL MOTIANI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
78 H. K. CHOUDHURY, REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER v. SHRI ISSARDAS KUNDANMAL MOTIANI AND OTHERS February 15, 1965 [P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. S!KRI, JJ.] Displaced Persons (Compensation and RehabiMation) Rules, 1955, r.l!f-If applies to agricultural woperty. B c D The respondent who had a "verified claim" applied for compen- sation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili- tation) 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 the agricultural property was joint property. He then cal- culated 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 de- termined according to f. :!.~, which makes special provision for pay- ment of coi;;npensation to joint families, before compensat~on was calculated. The High Court allowed the petition. E In the appeal to this Court it was contended that r. 19 was inap- plicable as that rule does not apply to agricultural land. HELD: The High Court was iight in holding that the rule ap- plied to the claim of the respondent in respect of the agricultural land. Chapter IV of the Rules in which r.19 occurs contains some F 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 con- sidered to see whether it has application to a claim for compensa- tion in respect of agricultural land. So considered, there is no prin- ciple of construction by which the scope af'the general words in r. 19 could be limited, so as not to apply to agricultural land. Chapter G VIII of the Rules provides for compensation 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 ena- bles the authorities to determine the unit for assessment of compensa- tion in the case of joint families. [83 D-E; 85 A-Fl C1v1L APPELLATE JuRJSDICTJON; Civil Appeals Nos. 89-93 H 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. Saclzthey, for the appellant (in C. As. No,. 89/91-'19641 CliuUDHGRY v. ISSARDAS (Sikri, J.) 79 A C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, K. S. Chawla and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 93 I 64). N. N. Keshwani, for the respondents in all the appeals. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B Sikri, J. These five appeals by special leave raise a common c qpestion of interpretation of r. 19 of the Displaced Persons (Com· pensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is common ground that nothing turns on any dissimi· larity in the facts of each appeal. It will accordingly suffice if facts in Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1964 3re 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 D 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 E gazette". It is common ground that agricultural land in Sind was so notified. The . respondent's claim was that he owned 114 share of 731 acres and 14 ghuntas standing in the name of Fatehchand. The Claim Officer, by order dated
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.