Modi, J.—This is an application for writ by Sunderdas Bhasin under Art. 226 of the Constitution, challenging the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaipur, dated 28th January 1957, and of the Regional Settlement Commissioner dated 21st February, 1957, by which they refused to grant him compensation for certain rural properties left by him in Pakistan, while migrating to India, on the ground that he was an allottee of agricultural land within the meaning of Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Displaced Persons Compensation Rules) made under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act No. XLIV of 1954) (hereinafter called the Displaced Persons Compensation Act).

2. The material facts are these. Prior to his fettling down in India, the petitioner was admitted a resident of village Chak Ramdas, Tehsil Bhulwal, District Sargodha, in what is now called the West Pakistan. It is also admitted that the petitioner owned and possessed,

(1) one residential house, and

(2) a shop-cum-residential building.

In the said village in addition to certain agricultural land. The petitioner filed his claim bearing index No. P/SH/316 before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Ministry of Rehablitation, Delhi, in which he valued the aforesaid rural properties at Rs. 12,000/-and Rs. 8,000/- respectively. The Additional Settlement Commissioner reduced the claim to Rs. 6,675/-and Rs. 6,120/-for both the properties respectively by his order dated 28th March, 1955, and verified it accordingly, vide Ex. 1. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for grant of compensation to the Settlement Officer, Jaipur, on the 31st March, 1956. It is important to mention at this stage that the petitioner had been allotted what is called 2-1/2 units of land in lieu of his agricultural land left by him in Pakistan. By his order dated 28th January, 1957, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaipur, informed the petitioner that no payment of compensation could be made to him in lieu of his rural claim under rule 65 of the Displaced Persons Compensation Rules, as he was an allottee of agricultural land. The petitioner went in appeal to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, and the latter by his order dated 21st February 1957, maintained the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, whereupon the petitioner has come up with his present application to this Court.

3. The main contention raised by the petitioner in his application are that Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons Compensation Rules, under which the petitioners claim has been rejected, is not applicable to his case, and, secondly, that, in any case, in considering the applicability of Rule 65, it is the total value of the rural buildings left by the displaced persons in Pakistan that has to be considered, and not the value of each building individually, and that if so considered, the petitioners claim for compensation cannot be rejected, inasmuch as the total value of the properties left by him in rural area was more than Rs. 10,000/-. It is also contended that Rule 65 is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

4. I may state at once that there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons Conversation Rules has no application to his case. That it is obviously applicable will be apparent from the plain language of the Rule, which reads as follows :—

"65. Separate compensation for rural building not to be paid in certain cases. (1) Any person to whom four acres or more of agricultural land have been allotted shall not be entitled to receive compensation separately in respect of his verified claim for any rural building the assessed value of which is less than Rs 20,000/-,

(2) Any person to whom less than four acres of agricultural land have been allotted, shell not be entitled to receive compensation separately in respect of his verified claim for any rural building the assessed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document