1. Petition for mandamus to verify claims and grant compensation for rural buildings under the Displaced Persons (Claims) and (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Acts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 255
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
27th October 1960
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.L. KAPUR, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
Makhan Lal Malhotra and others, Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India, Respondent.
Petition No. 44 of 1958.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. Naunit Lal and Gopal Singh, Advocates, for Petitioners; Mr. H. N. Sanyal Addl. Solicitor-General and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate (Mr. K. R. Chaudhuri and P. H. Dhebar, Advocates with them), for Respondent.
Advocates:
Gopal Singh, H.N.SANYAL, K.R.CHAUDHARY, N.S.BINDRA, NAUNIT LAL, R.H.Dhebar
Gopal Singh, H.N.SANYAL, K.R.CHAUDHARY, N.S.BINDRA, NAUNIT LAL, R.H.Dhebar
Classification under Article 14 is valid if based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object. In large-scale rehabilitation, policy decisions and inter-dominion agreements can justify distinctions in compensation, provided they are not arbitrary and are mitigated by other equitable grants.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954 - Rule 5 - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Rule 65 - Challenge to vires of rules - Discrimination - Classification - Reasonable nexus - The object of the impugned provisions is to rehabilitate evacuees on an equitable basis - Classification between urban and rural populations, and further between rural persons owning agricultural land with buildings and those with independent buildings, is based on intelligible differentia - The distinction between rural houses based on the amount of land allotted and the value of the building is a policy decision arising from agreements between governments to handle a massive migration crisis - Such classification is not arbitrary but based on sound principles and equitable considerations, especially when mitigated by other rehabilitation grants. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)
(B) Article 14 - Doctrine of Classification - Classification cannot be arbitrary but must be based upon differences pertinent to the subject and the purpose for which it is made - There must be a reasonable nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, displaced persons, challenged the validity of rules that restricted compensation for rural buildings based on the value of the building and the amount of agricultural land allotted to them. They argued that the classification was discriminatory and violated the right to equality.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the rules were based on policy decisions and agreements between governments aimed at the equitable rehabilitation of a vast number of displaced persons. The classification was not arbitrary as it distinguished between different categories of evacuees requiring different treatment for resettlement.
Issues: Whether the classification made under the rules regarding compensation for rural buildings based on land allotment and building value violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: Classification under Article 14 is valid if it is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In the context of large-scale rehabilitation, policy decisions and the provision of alternative grants justify the classification of rural properties.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the vires of rules limiting compensation for rural buildings based on land allotment, alleging violation of Article 14 due to lack of intelligible differentia. (Para 3 , 9 )
3. The classification of rural buildings based on value and land allotment is based on policy decisions and Inter-Dominion agreements to ensure equitable rehabilitation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Classification under Article 14 is valid if based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of equitable rehabilitation of displaced persons. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. Petition dismissed with costs. (Para 19 )
6. When is a classification under Article 14 of the Constitution considered valid?
A classification is valid if it is not arbitrary, is based on an intelligible differentia pertinent to the subject, and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. (Para 15 )
7. How are rural buildings treated for compensation purposes in the rehabilitation of displaced persons?
Rural buildings are categorized as either appendages of agricultural land or substantial independent units; only substantial buildings above a prescribed value are eligible for separate compensation. (Para 11 , 15 , 17 )
8. Can rules based on Inter-Dominion agreements be upheld despite appearing to create arbitrary thresholds?
Yes, reasonableness must be judged considering surrounding circumstances, such as unprecedented migration and the need for equitable distribution of properties through international agreements. (Para 14 , 16 )
Judgment
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 compensation in respect thereof; but there is little merit to commend the acceptance of the petition.
2. 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 situated in different villages. The petitioners 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 petitioner Nos. 3 to 6.
3. The petitioners challenge the vires of two rules- Rule 5 under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954, (Act XII of 1954) and R. 65 of the Rules made under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act), Act 44 of 1954. The challenge is on the ground of violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is necessary at this stage to set out the various acts and regulations which were passed in regard to displaced persons dealing with verification of their claims and the giving of compensation to them.
4. On April 1, 1948, the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Claims) Act, 1948. East Punjab Act VIII of 1948, was passed and this was followed by the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, XII of 1948. In the latter Act "land" was defined in S. 2(b) to mean
"land which is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or left for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture and includes-
(i) the sites of buildings and other structures on such land;". Under S. 2(a) "claim" was defined as
"a statement of loss or damage suffered by a refugee since the first day of March 1947, in respect of his land within the territory now comprised in the Province of (Punjab in Pakistan), North West Frontier Province, Sind or Balulchistan, or in any State adjacent to the aforesaid Provinces and acceding to Pakistan"
Section 4(1) of that Act made provision for submission for registration of claims in respect of land abandoned by a refugee.
5. On November 19, 1949, East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act) 1949, East Punjab Act XXXVI of 1949, was passed. By S.2(b) of this Act the word "allottee" was defined and by S. 2(d) "land" was defined. This definition which was slightly different from the definition in the East Punjab Act (act XII of 1948) was as follows:-
S. 2(d) "Land" means land which is not urban land and is not occupied as the site of any building in town or village and is occupied or let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture and includes-
(i) the sites of buildings and other structures on such land;".On May 18, 1950, another Act, the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 44 of 1950 was passed by the Central Legislature. In this Act "claim" was defined in S. 2(a) as "the assertion of a right to the ownership of, or to any interest in-
(i)...... ... ...... ...... ......
(ii) such class of property in any part of West Pakistan other than in any urban area as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf in the Official Gazette;".
This Act was in force for two years and then lapsed. Under S.2(a) (ii) the Central Government issued a notification on May 27, 1950, specifying the property in respect of which claims might be submitted. The properties were:-
"(1) Any immoveable property in West Pakistan which forms part of the assets of an industrial undertaking and is
