1966 Supreme(Del) 86

High Court Of Delhi
RAM LABHAYA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
L.P.A. 31D of 1964
Decided On : 08/18/1966

The amendment to rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, which substituted the word "gross" for the word "net", should be given retrospective effect as it did not affect any vested rights and the Legislature had not stated clearly or by distinct implication that the amendment would not be retrospective.

Headnote:

DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954 - SECTION 33 - RULE 30 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - ELIGIBILITY - AMENDMENT OF RULE 30 - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - GROSS COMPENSATION OR NET COMPENSATION.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant and the respondent were allottees of a house, which was allotable property. The dispute between the parties was as to which of them was eligible for the transfer of the property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the rules thereunder. The Managing Officer found that the arrears of rent of the property outstanding against the appellant came to Rs. 554.69 Naye Paise, while there were no such arrears outstanding against the respondent. The Managing Officer deducted the amount of arrears from the amount of compensation to which the appellant was entitled and then held that the net compensation due to the respondent was nearer to the reserve price of the property. Therefore, he declared that the respondent was eligible for purchasing the property. The appellant challenged the order of the Managing Officer before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who held that the amendment of rule 30 was not meant to have retrospective effect and could, therefore, not help the appellant. The appellant then went up, by way of revision to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner found the second point in favour of the appellant and, quashing the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Managing Officer, he declared the appellant to be the person eligible for the transfer of the property. The respondent challenged the order of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 33 of the Act, and the Central Government held that since the net compensation payable to the respondent was nearer to the value of the property, he was entitled to its transfer. The appellant then came to the court by way of a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the amendment to rule 30, whereby the word "gross" was substituted for the word "net", should be given retrospective operation not only upto the stage of appeal under the Act but also to the stages of revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the petition to the Central Government under section 33 of the Act. The court also held that the order of the Central Government under section 33 of the Act was erroneous as it was based on the finding that the respondent was entitled to the transfer of the property in question as the net compensation payable to him was nearer to the value of the Property, which was an error of law patent on the face of the record.

Issues: 1. Whether the amendment to rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, which substituted the word "gross" for the word "net", should be given retrospective effect? 2. Whether the order of the Central Government under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, was erroneous?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the amendment to rule 30 should be given retrospective effect as it did not affect any vested rights and the Legislature had not stated clearly or by distinct implication that the amendment would not be retrospective. 2. The court held that the order of the Central Government was erroneous as it was based on the finding that the respondent was entitled to the transfer of the property in question as the net compensation payable to him was nearer to the value of the Property, which was an error of law patent on the face of the record.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the learned single Judge and also quashing the impugned order of the Central Government under section 33 of the Act, with the result that the order of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner declaring the appellant to be the person eligible for the transfer of the property is restored and the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction that the property in dispute be transfered to the appellant in accordance with the order of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated the 11th of August, 1958.