1. Claim for compensation for rural buildings under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 — dispute over aggregation of building values to meet threshold limits. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 187
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
The Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur and others, Appellants
Versus
Sundardas Bhasin, Respondent.
Totaram Tekchand, Intervener.
Civil Appeal No. 294 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. H.N. Sanyal, Addl. Solicitor-General of India and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate (Mr. P. D. Menon, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, for Respondent; Mr. N. N. Keswani, Advocate, for Intervener.
Advocates:
H.N.SANYAL, N.N.KESHVANI, N.S.BINDRA, NAUNIT LAL, P.D.MENON
H.N.SANYAL, N.N.KESHVANI, N.S.BINDRA, NAUNIT LAL, P.D.MENON
Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act Rules requires each individual rural building to meet the minimum value threshold (Rs. 10,000 or Rs. 20,000) for separate compensation; the values of multiple buildings cannot be aggregated to meet this limit.
Headnote:(A) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Rules framed thereunder - Rule 65 - Compensation for rural buildings - Threshold for compensation - Whether the value of multiple rural buildings can be aggregated to exceed the prescribed limit of Rs. 10,000 or Rs. 20,000 to qualify for separate compensation - Rule 65 provides that persons allotted less than four acres of agricultural land are not entitled to separate compensation for any rural building with an assessed value of less than Rs. 10,000, and those allotted four or more acres are not entitled for buildings valued less than Rs. 20,000 - The expression "any rural building" refers to each individual building and not the aggregate value of all buildings left behind by a displaced person. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
(B) General Clauses Act - Section 13 - Interpretation of "singular" as "plural" - Application of the rule is subject to the subject or context - Where the context of the compensation scheme and the underlying inter-Dominion agreement indicate that only individual substantial buildings are eligible for separate compensation, the singular term "building" cannot be read as plural to allow aggregation of values. (Paras 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
A displaced person who was allotted less than four acres of agricultural land claimed compensation for two rural buildings. The value of each building was individually below the threshold of Rs. 10,000, but their combined value exceeded the limit. The High Court held that the values should be added up to determine eligibility for compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that buildings below the prescribed value were intended to be treated as appendages to agricultural land. Compensation for such buildings is provided through the allotment of a house or site with a building grant under Rule 57, rather than separate monetary compensation.
Issues: Whether the value of more than one rural building can be aggregated to reach the total of Rs. 10,000 or Rs. 20,000 for the purpose of claiming separate compensation under Rule 65.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Rule 65 refers to the value of each individual building. The scheme evolved for displaced persons distinguishes between substantial buildings (above the threshold) and appendages (below the threshold). Since Rule 57 provides an alternative mechanism for buildings below the threshold, Rule 65 specifically prohibits separate compensation for them, regardless of the total value of all such buildings owned by the person.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the threshold value in Rule 65 applies to each individual rural building or the aggregate value of all rural buildings left by a displaced person. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 )
3. Rule 65 is based on an inter-Dominion agreement treating buildings below a certain value as appendages to agricultural land, compensated via house or site allotments. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. The threshold value in Rule 65 refers to each individual building; aggregation of multiple buildings below the limit is not permissible for separate compensation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — writ petition dismissed. (Para 8 )
6. Can the value of multiple rural buildings be aggregated to exceed the threshold for separate compensation under Rule 65?
No. The court held that Rule 65 refers to the value of each individual building. Buildings below the threshold are treated as appendages to agricultural land and are not eligible for separate compensation, regardless of their total aggregate value. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
7. Does the singular term any rural building in Rule 65 include the plural under the General Clauses Act to allow aggregation?
No. While Section 13 of the General Clauses Act generally allows singular to include plural, it does not apply if repugnant to the subject or context. In this case, the context focuses on the building's nature as a substantial structure versus an appendage. (Para 8 )
8. Are displaced persons with rural buildings below the Rule 65 threshold entirely without compensation?
No. Such buildings are treated as appendages to agricultural land. Compensation is provided through Rule 57, which allows for the allotment of a house or a site with a building grant in addition to agricultural land. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 )
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 buil
