JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. versus KHILLU RAM AND ANR.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 06-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
. D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
78 
JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
KHILLU RAM AND ANR. 
October 6, 1975 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au, JJ.] 
. Displaced persons (Compensation .and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, r. 30-
Efject of its deletion 011 pending proceedings-Retrospective effect. 
Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 
1955, .rres:ribes that where property is in the occupation of more persons than 
one, it shall be offered to the person whose gross compemation is the highest. 
A pa·rticu.lar property was allotted under this rule to the first respondent. A 
revision petition by the rival claimant, was dismissed in 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 applicatiQn under s. 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensatioru 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 a·>ide the order allotting the premises to the first respondent. 
A writ petition 
filed by the first respondent in the High Court was allowed . 
In apper.1 to this Court, the appellant contended that the rule was one of 
pro:edure 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 wa·> 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 conforred by the Act on displaced persons. The Act provides for the 
payment of compenrntion and rehabilitation grants to displa:ed persons and 
matters cc.nnected 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 manner in which compensation is payable is also a part of the 
right to get compemation. The rule is not am instrument of machinery for 
asserting a right conferred by the A:t; it does not regulate the procedure 
for settlenlent of disputes concerning that right. Therefore, the deletion of 
the rule in 1963 cannot affect pending actions. [80 D~GJ. 
(b) Neither by express words nor by implication the amendment of the rules 
' '-
in 1963 deleting r. 30 has been 111ade retrospective in opemtion. [81 A-BJ. 
"' 
Pt, Dev Raj v. Union of India & Ors.; A.I.R. 1974 Pun. 65, approved. 
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 862 of l 968. 
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. 
it. ' 
r' 
,. 
JOINT SECRETARY v. KHILLU RAM (Gupta, J.) 
79 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GUPTA, J. 
This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceed-
ing under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitati~n) 
Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The only quest10n 
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 Ct)stodian 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 
<Jf their share in the shop to him. 
B1y 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 Manag-
ing Office(, 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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.