1. Claim for compensation for agricultural land by a displaced person — dispute over the application of Rule 19 regarding joint family property assessment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
15th February 1965
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
H. K. Choudhury, Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay (In all the appeals), Appellant
Versus
(1) Issardas Kundanmal Motiani and others (In C. As. Nos. 89 to 92 of 1964), and (2) Lachmandas Hotechand Kripalani (In C. A. No. 93 of 1964), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 89 to 93 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
M/s. K. S. Chawla and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, (In C. As. Nos. 89 to 91 of 1964), for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India (M/s. K. S. Chawla and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, with him), (In C. A. No. 93 of 1964), for Appellant; Mr. N. N. Keshwani, Advocate, (In all appeals), for Respondents.
Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, K.S.CHAWLA, N.N.KESHVANI, R.N.SACH
C.K.DAFTARY, K.S.CHAWLA, N.N.KESHVANI, R.N.SACH
Rule 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, applies to agricultural land because the term "properties" is general and the statutory framework does not distinguish between urban and agricultural land when determining the unit of assessment for joint families.
Headnote:(A) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 40; Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 - Rules 19, 20, 51, 56 - Interpretation of Rule 19 regarding compensation for joint families - Whether "properties" mentioned in Rule 19 includes agricultural land - The term "properties" is general and encompasses agricultural land; the statutory scheme does not distinguish between urban and agricultural land for the purpose of determining the unit of assessment for compensation. (Paras 13, 15)
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Where a rule provides a special provision for the computation of compensation for joint families, and the language used is general, it shall be interpreted to include all types of verified claims, including agricultural land, unless expressly excluded. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
A displaced person submitted a claim for a share in agricultural land. The authority determined that the land was joint family property and calculated the compensation as a fraction of the total. The claimant contended that a specific rule providing for the computation of compensation for joint families should be applied to determine the unit of assessment. The High Court ruled that the said rule applied to agricultural land, and this finding was challenged by the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the special provision for payment of compensation to joint families under Rule 19 applies to agricultural land.
Issues: Whether Rule 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, which provides for the computation of compensation for joint families, is applicable to claims relating to agricultural land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the expression "properties" in Rule 19(1) is general and includes agricultural land. The overarching framework of the Act and the Rules does not distinguish between urban and agricultural land for verified claims. While specific rules govern the scale of allotment for agricultural land, they do not address the unit of assessment for joint families or co-owners. Therefore, Rules 19 and 20, which determine the unit for assessment, apply to all verified claims, including agricultural land. (Paras 8, 12, 13, 15)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Rule 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 applies to agricultural land or is limited to non-agricultural property. (Para 5 , 6 , 14 , 15 )
3. The Compensation Act and Rules do not distinguish between urban and agricultural land for verified claims; Rule 19's general terminology includes agricultural properties. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 )
4. Rule 19 applies to agricultural land as the terms properties and claim are general and not restricted by the scheme of the Rules. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 )
5. Appeals dismissed with costs; High Court direction to apply Rule 19 for compensation determination upheld. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. Does Rule 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 apply to agricultural land?
Yes. The court held that the terms properties and claim in Rule 19 are general and include agricultural land, as the Compensation Act and related rules do not distinguish between urban and agricultural land for verified claims. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. How is the unit for assessment of compensation determined for joint families or co-owners of agricultural land?
The unit for assessment is determined by Rules 19 and 20. Rule 19 provides specific computation methods for joint families, while Rule 20 treats the share of each co-owner as the unit for assessment. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. Does Chapter VIII of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 override the application of Rule 19 to agricultural land?
No. Chapter VIII deals with the method of granting compensation to the identified unit, whereas Rules 19 and 20 determine what that unit—whether an individual, member of a joint family, or co-owner—is. (Para 15 )
Judgment
SIKRI, J.: These five appeals by special leave raise a common question of interpretation of R. 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is common ground that nothing turns on any dissimilarity in the facts of each appeal. It will accordingly suffice if facts in Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1964 are set out.
2. The respondent, Lachmandas Hotechand Kripalani, is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He has three brothers. They owned 731 acres of agricultural land in District Nawabshah, Taluka Nawab Shah, Sind-now in Pakistan. The respondent submitted a claim under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 (XLIV of 1950)-hereinafter referred to as the Claims Act. The word claim was defined to mean "assertion of a right to the ownership of, or to any interest in (i) any immovable property in West Pakistan which is situate within an urban area, or (ii) such class of property in any part of West Pakistan, other than an urban area as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf in the official gazette. It is common ground that agricultural land in Sind was so notified. The respondents claim was that he owned 1/4 share of 731 acres and 14 ghuntas standing in the name of Fatehchand. The Claim Officer, by order dated October 7, 1952, accepted the claim and assessed his claim as 94.3 standard acres.
3. on July 2, 1955, the respondent applied for compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XLIV of 1954)-hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Act. In the application he stated that he was not a member of a Joint Hindu Family in Pakistan, but his claim was as a co-sharer along with three others, who had filed separate claims. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner was, however, not satisfied with this assertion and after holding an enquiry, by order dated March 3, 1960, he held that the four alleged cosharers were members of a Joint Hindu Family, and the whole agricultural land claim was to be treated as joint property. On August 29, 1960, a statement of account was issued to the respondent. This statement showed that his claim was assessed as Rs. 10,701 gross compensation. This figure was arrived at, as stated in the affidavit of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, thus:
"The claim was assessed for 376 standard acres and 12 units out of which the petitioner had 1/4th share. The compensation on 376 Standard Acres and 12 Units works out to 108 Standard Acres 0-3/10 Units as per scale indicated in R. 51. This converted in terms of money as per R. 56 comes to Rs. 42,806. The petitioner s 1/4th share would be Rs. 10,701.
4. The respondent then on October 28, 1960, served a notice on the Regional Settlement Commissioner calling upon him to rectify the statement of account, failing which he will be constrained to move the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In this notice he claimed that R. 20 applied to his case; in the alternative he asserted that at least R. 19 should be applied to him. In reply, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner informed him that the calculation had been done correctly. Thereupon, he filed a petition under Arts. 226 and 227, in the Bombay High Court. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the statement of account furnished to the petitioner on August 29, 1960, and directed that the respondent shall give the benefit of R. 19 and determine the amount of compensation payable to him in accordance with the provisions of Rr. 19, 51 and 56 and other rules of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955.
5. The appellant having obtained special leave, the appeals are now before us. We may mention at the outset that in the High Court the respondent s counsel did not challenge the finding of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner that the respondent and his brothers were members of a joint family. The High Court came to the conclusion that R. 19 appli
