UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS versus IQBAL SINGH

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 988 · Decided: 10-12-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
988 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
v. 
IQBAL SINGH 
December 10, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, M. H. BEG, R. s. SARKARIA AND 
P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabi/itatio11) Act, 1954-Section 40-
Rules 16 to 21-Ru/es whether to carry out purpose of the cct or can go /1eyo11d 
the objects for which they cmi be framed-Whether verified claims of a disp/ac• 
ed person can be clubbed with a legacy received by him or the purpose of pay-
ment of maximum compe11sation under the act-Transfer of Property 
Act-
Sectio11 6-Meaning of Property-Ri!iht of transfer of properl)' of inheritance 
how laf.:en rn1 ay. 
The resp·ondent a displaced person from Pakistan had a verified claim of 
more than Rs. 32 lacs from compensation under the Displaced Persons (Com-
pensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. 
His uncle Jai Singh had also a verified 
claim of about Rs. 26 lacs. 
Jai Singh executed a will by which a portion of his 
share in the compensation was bequeathed to the respondent. 
Jai Singh died. 
The As·sistant Settlement Officer clubbed together the individual claim of the 
respondent and the share of the legacy and awarded the maximum compensation 
of Rs. 2 lacs under rule 16. 
Respondent objected to the clubbing on the ground 
that the character of the share Jai Singh was that of a legacy and 
not of 
compensation. 
On an appeal, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner accepted 
the re;pondent's contention. The Regional Settlement Commissioner, however, 
revised the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and restored the 
order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. 
The appeal to the Settlement Com- · 
missioner filed by the respondent failed. 
The High Court allowed the writ peti .. 
tion filed by the respondent and quashed the orders passed by the Sdtlement 
Con1n1issioner. 
Jn an appeal by certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) it was contended by 
the appellant that the purpose of the Act was to compensate and rehabilitate 
displaced persons subject to a maximum limit. 
Combined efl'ect of rules J 6 
to 2 I interpreted in the light of the scheme of the Act was said to be that the 
amount of' compensation payable to an individual cannot in any case exceed 
Rs. 2 lacs. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : I. There is nothing in the Act to prevent a claimant from making 
a gift or will in respect of the amount he might be entitled to get. No pro-
vision of the Act takes away rights of transfer of or inheritance to verified 
claims. 
Nothing like an abatement or an extinction of a claim by the death 
of the claimant is provided for by the Act. 
The statutory rights of claimants 
to compensation are covered by the wide definition of "property" in section 6 
of the Transfer or Property Act. 
They cannot evaporate or vanish suddenly 
wilb. the death of a claimant. 
Rules framed under section 40 of the Act have 
to be and are those reasonably necessary for carrying out the purposes of the 
Act. They cannot go beyond the objects for which they can be framed. 
The 
nbjects are determination and payment of compensation and do not extend to 
deprivation of anything acquired in India. 
[990-F-H, 991-A] 
2. The right of the respondent as a legatee was different in character from 
his cl"im as a displaced person 
There is no provision for clubbing together of 
compensation to different displaced persons each with a right of his own except 
as members of joint families which are treated as legal entities by themselves. 
The rights of a successor of another displaced person are outside the rule. The 
UNION V. IQBAL SINGH (Beg, J.) 
989 
judgment of the Punjab High Court in the case of Karam Singh v. Union of 
Jndia l.LR. [1964] I Punjab 742, approved. [991 C, 992 A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1223 of 1972. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 19-8-1969-0.f the Delhi 
High Court in Civil Writ No. 117-D of 1961. 
Shyamla Pappu and M. N. Shroff for the Appellants. 
4 
D. Goburdhan and R. Goburdhan for Respondent. 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
BEG, 1. 
The Union of India and the Commissioners of the Rehabi-
litation Department of the Govt. of India are the appdlants before us 
after certification of this case, under Article 133(1) (a) of the Consti-
tution, if involves a consideration of the meaning of some rules framed 
under Section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabi-
litation) Act 44 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 
The respondent Iqbal Singh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.