THE REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER versus SUNDERDAS BHASIN

Citation: [1963] 2 S.C.R. 534 · Decided: 27-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CMnna Gow.ta 
v. 
S1.i. .J Jlysor• 
MtMIAalk., J. 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l963J 
We, therefore, allow ea.oh of the two appeals, 
set a.side the conviction a.nd sentences 
pa.BBed 
a.gs.inst the the a.ppella.nts and direct tha.t they be 
set at. liberty. 
Apptal8 allcwe.d. 
IHI 
THE REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER 
April 27. 
o. 
SUNDERDAS BHASIN 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRA.GAD.KAR, K. N. 
WA.Nonoo, N. RA.JAGOPALA. AYYA.NGA.R a.nd 
T. L. VENKA.TA.RA.MA. AIY AR, JJ.) 
Rthahilitation of 
DUp/actd per.!OM-Compenaation for 
rural buildill{l1-Not payabl< for rural building valtud at IU4 
than&. 10,000-More than cme rural building each valutd"" 
lw than Ra. 10,000-Wht.th<r valti< ean be add<d up to reaeh 
total of Rs 10,000-Displaeed Perll01&8 (CompeMaation and 
R<Mbilitation), Ru/.,, r. 65. 
The respondent, a displaced person, had agricultural 
land as well as houses in the rural area in what iJ now Wcat 
Pakistan. Each house was valued at ICM than Rs. 10,000J· but 
the total value of all the houses was more than Rs. I 0,000/-. 
He was allowed 2-1/2 acres of land in lieu of the agricultural 
land left by him. 
He applied for compensation for the rural 
hOU3CJ, 
This claim was rejected on the !!"Ound that It was 
barred by r. 65 Displaced Persons (Compensation and Reha-
bilitation) Rules. 
Ruic 65(2) provided that any person to 
whom less than 4 acrea of agricultural land had been allotted 
shall not be entitled to receive compcnoation sepa'tately in 
respect of any rural building the assessed value of which was 
less than Rs. I0,000/-. The respondent contended that in 
order to determine the limit of Rs. 10,000 in r. 65(2) the 
value of all the rural buildingi should be added up. 
Htld, that r. 65(2) applied to the ca"' and the ""J'llR• 
dent was not entitled to compensation for the rural bOUlcs 
left by him in Pallitan. When r. 65(2) spcal<s of any l;uild-
lng the assessed value of which iJ Rs. I 0,000/- it refers to 
each building being 
of less than that value; 
docs not 
" 
• 
-Y 
2 S.O.R. 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 
535 
contemplate the adding up of the value of more than one 
building. The complaint that no compensation had been 
provided for buildings valued at less than Rs. 10,000 was not 
correct. For such cases r. 57 provided for the allotment of 
a house or a site with building grant in addition to the 
agricultural land. 
Under the Inter-Dominion Agreement it 
was decided to treat'buildings of a certain value as substantial 
and buildings of lower value as mere appendag"" to agricultural 
land, the Rules give effect to that agreement. 
Ohanapdas Mulchi v. Union of India, I.L.R. (1960) 
1 Punj. 153, approved. 
Totaram Teclcchand v. H.K. Ohoudhary, A.I.R. (1960) 
Born. 528, not approved. 
Makhanlal Malhotra v. Union of India.(1961) 2 S.C.R. 
120, referred to. 
· 
· 
Orvn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Oivil Appeal 
No. 294 of 1960. 
. 
Appeals by. special leave from the judgment 
and order dated October 3, 1958, ofRajasthan High 
Court in D.B. Civil Writ Case No. 39 of 1957. 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor Ge'M'Tal of 
India, M. 8. Bindra and P. D. Menon, for the 
appellants. 
Naunit Lal, for the respondent. 
N. N. Keswani, for the intervener. 
1962. April 27. The Judgment of the Court 
~ 
), was delivered ,by 
W ANOHoo, J.-The short question raised in 
this appeal by special leave is whether it is possible 
to add up the value of more than one rural building, 
each ofwbioh is less than Rs.I0,000/- or Rs.20,000/· 
in order to reach the total of Rs. 10,000/- or 
Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of taking the case for 
compe1111&tion for rural buildings. out of the ambit of 
r. 65 of the RuJea :framed under the Diaplaeecl 
Paw (ComP""'tiOD and RehabiliWion\ Aot, 1964. 
Th• Re,S-1 
Settlfln.,U 
GommU .. ontr 
•• 
Sunduia1 Bl.·atin 
1962 
TJ.e lttfiou•l 
Stlt/111t1nt 
r~1siorur 
.. 
~·u11tfai1JJ Bll«•iti 
536 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963) 
(44 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 
The brief facts necessary for this purpose are these. 
Tho respondent is a displaced person. who migrated 
from what is now part of West Pakistan to India . 
It appears that he had agricultural land as well as 
houses in the rural area in the place from where he 
migrated. He was allowed ·2-1 /2 11~res of land in the 
Punjab in li<om of the agricultural land left by him in 
what is now Pakistan. In addition he also left 
behind a house and a shop. He' claimed Rs. 12,000/-
for thf.' house and Rs. 8,000/- for the ~hop as com-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.