JUDGMENT

BEG, J.:— The Union of India and the Commissioners of the Rehabilitation Department of the Govt. of India are the appellants before us after certification of this case, under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution. It involves a consideration of the meaning of some rules framed under Section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 44 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) .

2. The respondent Iqbal Singh, a displaced person from Rawalpindi, in West Pakistan, had a verified claim assessed at over Rs. 32 lacs from compensation under the Act. His uncle, Jai Singh, had also a verified claim assessed 212 at Rs. 26,06,413/-. On 21st November, 1952, Jai Singh executed a will under which he gave various legatees, including the respondent, shares in the compensation which was due to be paid to him. Jai Singh died on 7th February, 1953. In an inquiry under Section 9 of the Act the respondent was held to be a beneficiary under Jai Singh s will to the extent of 19% of the amount due to be paid to Jai Singh. The Assistant Settlement Officer, however, clubbed together the individual claim of over Rs. 32 lacs of Iqbal Singh respondent, and the share of Rupees 4,95,028/- as a legatee in the separate claim of Jai Singh. He then awarded the maximum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs under Rule 16 which says:

"16. Scale of compensation. - Compensation shall be payable in accordance with the scale specified in appendices VIII or IX as the case may be".

3. Appendix VIII is the relevant appendix giving percentages of the assessed claims which were to be paid as "compensation" for the verified claims ranging from Rs. 500 to Rs. 18 lacs and above. The maximum prescribed for Rs. 18 lacs and above is Rs. 2 lacs as compensation". Thus, no claimant could get more than that as compensetion whatever be the amount at which his claim was assessed. The result of clubbing together by the Assistant Settlement Officer was that the respondent was not to get more than Rs. 2 lacs even though his own claim as compensation was for that much so that he was, if this decision was correct, to be totally deprived of his share in the legacy left by his uncle. His case is that he is entitled to Rs. 2 lacs on his claim of Rs. 32 lacs, and, in addition, to his share of 19% also as a legatee of the will relating to the amount which was payable to Jai Singh deceased as claimant. The character of the first was "compensation" and of the second was that of a "legacy" under a will.

4. In appeal, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner accepted the respondent s case, by an order dated 29th July, 1957, and directed that the respondent s claim be paid separately from the share in the claim he was entitled to as a beneficiary under the will mentioned above.

5. On 26th April, 1957, the Regional Settlement Commissioner, however, revised the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and held that the respondent could not, under the existing rules, get any share of compensation separately as a legatee out of the estate of Jai Singh.

6. The respondent appealed to the Settlement Commissioner who agreed with the Regional Commissioner. The Central Government also rejected a revision petition of the respondent under Section 33 of the Act.

7. The respondent then filed a Writ Petition before the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court which came up finally before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and was allowed. Orders of the Central Government and the Settlement Commissioner were quashed and the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner was restored by the High Court.

8. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the High Court overlooked the scheme of the Act and misinterpreted the relevant rules. The main contention advanced by Mrs. Shymla Pappu, appearing on behalf of the appellants, is that the whole purpose of the Act was to compensate and rehabilitate individual displaced persons with a maximum limit imposed on what could be awarded to a