Judgment

WANCHOO, 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 of which is less than Rs. 10,000/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 compensation for rural buildings out of the ambit of R. 65 of the Rules framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, No. 44 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The brief facts necessary for this purpose are these. The 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 acres of land in the Punjab in lieu 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 the house and Rs. 8,000/- for the shop as compensation. The Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed his claim, to the extent of Rs.6,675/- for the house and Rs. 6,120/- for the shop, the total thus coming to Rs. 12,796/-. This was adjudged in March, 1955. Thereafter, the respondent made an application to the Settlement Officer, Jaipur in March, 1956 for compensation under the Act. This claim of his was however rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaipur, on the ground that it could not be entertained in view of R. 65 of the Rules, as he was allotted agricultural land to the extent of 21/2 acres. The respondent then appealed to the Regional Settlement Commissioner who upheld the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. Thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan and the main contention raised by him there was that in order to determine the limit of Rs. 10,000/- provided in R. 65(2) the value of all the rural buildings left by him in Pakistan should be added up & if the total is more than Rs. 10,000/- he is entitled to compensation. This contention has been. accepted by the High Court which directed that the respondent should be paid compensation to which he was entitled under the Rules for the rural buildings left by him the value of which collectively was more than R.,. 10,000/- it is this order of the High Court which is challenged before us in the present appeal.

2. It may be mentioned that this question has been raised in three High Courts. The Punjab High Court, by a Full Bench decision in Chanandas Mukhi, v. Union of India, ILR (1960) I Punj 153 held that in order that a person may be entitled to compensation for rural buildings left in Pakistan and thus take the case out of the ambit of R. 65 it is necessary that the rural buildings left by him should each be of the value of Rs. 10,0001- or Rs. 20,000/- or more, as the case may be, and that a displaced person is not entitled to compensation if he has left more than one rural building, the value of each being less than Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/- though the total value of such buildings left by him may be more than Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/-, as the case may he. The Bombay High Court on the other hand where a similar question was raised has taken the same view as the Rajasthan High Court in Totaram Tekchand v. H. K. Choudhary, AIR 1960 Bom 528. What we have to determine therefore is which of these two views is correct.

3. Rule 65 is in these terms:-

"65. Separate compensation for rural building not to be paid in certain cases-

(1) Any person to whom four acres or more of agricultural land have been allotted shall not be entitled to receive compensation separately in respect of his verified claim for any rural building the assessed value of which is less than Rs. 20,000/-.

(2) Any person to whom less than four acres of agricultural land have been allotted, shall not be entitled to receive compensation separately in respect of his verified claim for any rural buildi