Judgement

A. C. GUPTA, J.:- This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceeding under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The only question for determination in the appeal is whether the deletion of R. 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) with effect from August 13, 1963 made any difference to the rights of the parties concerned in this case. The question arises on the following facts.

2. Shop No. 2 in Tripri township in Patiala which is a Government built property was allotted in 1950 to the first respondent Khillu Ram jointly with one Tara Chand and his son by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In 1951 both Tara Chand and his son left Tripri to settle elsewhere, and the second respondent Teju Mal applied for allotment of their share in the shop to him. By his order dated November 11, 1959 the Managing Officer, Tripri and Rajpura, held that Teju Mal and Khillu Ram were in possession of the shop as allottees respectively of 2/3 and 1/3 shares therein. Aggrieved by the order of the Managing Officer, the first respondent Khillu Ram preferred an appeal to the Settlement Officer, Jullundur, who by his order dated February 12,1962 set aside the order of the Managing Officer and remanded the case for a fresh decision under Rule 30 of the Rules. Rule 30 is in these terms:

"Payment of compensation where an acquired evacuee property which is an allottable property is in occupation of more than one person.- If more persons than one holding verified claims are in occupation of any acquired evacuee property which is an allottable property, the property shall be offered to the person whose gross compensation is the highest and the other persons may be allotted such other acquired evacuee property which is allottable as may be available:"

This rule has a proviso and an explanation none of which is relevant for the present purpose. After remand the case was transferred to the Assistant Settlement Officer who found that the gross compensation payable to the first respondent was higher than that of the rival claimant, Teju Mal, and in terms of Rule 30 allotted the entire shop to the first respondent by his order dated November 27, 1962. A revision petition against this order made by Teju Mal was dismissed by the Deputy Chief Settlement Officer on September 5, 1963. In the meantime, as stated already, Rule 30 had been abrogated with effect from August 13, 1963. Teju Mal then moved the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act. Teju Mal s application under Section 33 was heard on February 25, 1964. The effect of deletion of Rule 30 was that the properties which were in the occupation of more than one person was to be put to sale. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India who heard the application under S. 33 held that the case should be governed by the Rules as amended in 1963 excluding Rule 30, and accordingly by his order dated February 26,1964 he set aside the order allotting the shop to the first respondent Khillu Ram and directed the property in question to be put to sale. The first respondent filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court for quashing the order passed under S. 33. The Punjab High Court held that the subsequent deletion of R. 30 did not affect the existing rights of the first respondent and quashed the order of the Central Government made under Sec. 33. The correctness of this order is challenged in the appeal before us which has been preferred by the Union of India and several other authorities concerned with the administration of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

3. The only submission made by Mr. Sanghi appearing for the appellants is that Rule 30 was a rule of procedure and its deletion in l963 affected only the mode of proceeding by which the rival claims of Khillu Ram and Teju Mal were to be decided. It was argued that amendment of th