MAKHAN LAL MALHOTRA AND OTHERS versus THE UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 120 · Decided: 27-10-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
z96o 
MAKHAN LAL MALHOTRA AND OTHERS 
October a7. 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, 
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Evacuee Property-Rural building-Claim for compensation-
Classification -
Validity of rules-Displaced Persons (Claims) 
Supplementary Act, z954 (z2 of z954), r. 5-Displaced Persons 
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, z954 (44 of z954), r. 65-
Constitution of India, Arts: z4, 3z(5)(b)(iii). 
The petitioners who were displaced persons from West 
Pakistan put forward certain claims in regard to village houses 
which they had left there, but which were rejected by the 
....
' !-
Rehabilitation authorities. The claims were for amounts above 
" 
Rs. 20,000 in the case of some of the petitioners and above 
Rs. 10,000 in the case of the others. By r. 5 framed under the 
Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954, claims 
could be verified provided, inter alia, that where a claimant had 
• 
been allotted any agricultural land in India and such land so 
allotted exceeded four acres, the value of the building in respect 
of which the claim was made shall not be less than Rs. 20,000 
and· where it did not exceed four acres the claim made was not 
less than Rs. 10,000. Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons (Com-
pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, provided that any per-
son to whom more than four acres of agricultural land had been 
allotted shall not be entitled to receive compensation separa-
tely in respect of his verified claim for any rural building the 
assessed value of which was less than Rs. 20,000, and any per-
son allotted four acres or less was not entitled to receive com-
pensation where the value was less than ·Rs. 10,000. The peti-
tioners challenged the validity of the aforesaid rules as being 
discriminatory and there!>y contravening Art. 14 of the .Consti-
tution of India on the grounds that the object of the various 
Acts and the rules made thereunder was to rehabilitate dis-
placed persons but by the rules, .classifications had been made 
with reference to houses in rural areas which were discrimina-
tory as neither the classes were based on intelligible differentia 
nor was there a rational nexus between that differentia and the 
object sought to be achieved. It was found that the impugned 
rules were made in pursuance of an Inter-Dominion Agreement 
between the two Governments with regard to evaluation of 
evacuee property, which had received recognition in Art. 31(5) 
(b)(iii) of the Constitution. 
Held, that the impugned rules afforded a reasonable justifi-
cation for the classification and did not contravene Art. 14 of 
the Constitution. 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
121 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Petition No. 44 of 1958. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India 
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
N aunit Lal and Gopal Singh, for the petitioners. 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, 
N. S. Bindra, K. R. Choudhri and R.H. Dhebar, for 
the respondent. 
1960. October 27. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
KAPUR J .-The petitioners have moved this Court 
under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of 
mandamus against the respondent to verify the claims 
put forward by the petitioners and to grant compensa-
tion in respect thereof; but there is little merit to 
commend the acceptance of the petition. 
The petitioners are displaced persons from West 
Punjab which is now known as West Pakistan and 
have taken up their residences in different parts of 
India. They put forward certain claims in regard to 
village houses which they had left in West Pakistan 
and which were situate in different villages. The peti-
tioners have in their petition set out their respective 
claims which were rejected by the Rehabilitation 
authorities. It is unnecessary to give details of the 
properties in the various villages in regard to which 
claims were made. It is sufficient to say that the 
claims were put forward and they were for amounts 
above Rs. 20,000 in the case of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 
and above Rs. 10,000 in the case of petitioners Nos. 3 
to 6. 
The petitioners challenge the vires of two rules-
Rule 5 under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supple-
mentary Act, 1954, (Act 12 of 1954) and r. 65 of the 
Rules made under the Displaced Persons (Compensa-
tion and Rehabilitation Act), Act 44 of 1954. The 
challenge is on the ground of violation of Art. 14 of 
the

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