Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, does not bar a person from claiming compensation for rural buildings merely because they have a verified claim of less than Rs. 20,000 or Rs. 10,000.

SHELAT, J. :- The petitioner is a displaced person from Sind (West Pakistan). On the partition of the country he migrated to India leaving behind him immoveable properties consisting of houses, shops and agricultural lands. Under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act No. XLIV of 1950 the petitioner preferred his claim. In that claim he valued the houses and shops at Rs. 67,000. So far as agricultural lands were concerned, he did not place any pecuniary value but declared them to be 7 acres 32/1-2 gunthas. The two claims were separately indexed each as S/IK-11/ 323. The first claim was verified and valued at Rs. 29,631-10-0 and the second relating to agricultural lands was verified as being equivalent to 5 Standard acres 13½ annas. The residential buildings and shops were indexed, verified and valued as one unit having an aggregate value of Rs. 29,631-10-0. In other words, the buildings and shops were not treated as separate claims but as forming one claim under the aforesaid Index number. The petitioner thereafter applied for compensation in terms of his verified claims both for the residential buildings and shops and also for his agricultural lands. This application was acknowledged by the department on 3-2-1956. On 7-8-1956, the department issued an Allotment Order in favour of the petitioner allotting to him 4 Standard acres and 6/2-5 units of agricultural lands situate at the village Waigaon, Taluka Hinganghat, District Wardha. The allotment order is Exhibit C to the petition. It is obvious from the order and the particulars of the claim and the Index Number of the verified claim of the Petitioner that 4 Standard acres and odd units were allotted to the petitioner as compensation in respect of his verified claim regarding the agricultural lands only. There was, however, no indication in this allotment order or otherwise how the respondent had dealt with the claim of the petitioner in respect of his rural buildings of which the verified claim as aforesaid was fixed at Rs. 29,631-10-0.

2. On or about 25-3-1957, house No. 293 situate in Taluka Hinganghat, District Wardha, was put up for public auction by the Department. That property was one of the properties in the compensation pool properties. At the public auction held on that day the petitioner was the highest bidder, his bid being for Rs. 9,200. The bid of Rs. 9,200 made by the petitioner being the highest, the auctioneer, who was acting for and on behalf of the respondent, accepted it. Under the rules governing the auction, the auction-purchaser would be required to pay 10 per cent of the purchase price as and by way of earnest money before he could be accepted as the auction-purchaser. That Procedure, however, does not seem to have been followed in this case. Instead of taking 10 per cent. of the auction price as deposit or earnest money from the petitioner, the auctioneer accepted from the petitioner an indemnity bond in terms of Form No. 21-A annexed to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules of 1955. The indemnity bond so taken from the petitioner provided that the petitioner, the highest bidder, being a displaced person having a verified claim, was entitled instead of making a deposit to execute the indemnity bond. The petitioner by that indemnity bond undertook to pay to Government the sum of Rs. 920 being the deposit amount together with all costs, charges and expenses, losses and damages that shall or may be occasioned to the Government in the event of the petitioner failing to complete the purchase of the said house, in accordance with the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. Upon the indemnity bond having been executed by the petitioner, the respondent, by his letter dated 5-4-1957, informed the petitioner that his bid of Rs. 9,200 at the said auction sale had been accepted. It was also stated in that letter that since the petitioner was a displaced person with a verified claim, if he desired that the bala