Civil Appeal No 1223 of 1972
From the Judgment and Order dated the 19 8 1969 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No 117 D of 1961
Shyamla Pappu and M N Shroff for the Appellants
D Goburdhan and R Goburdhan for Respondent
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 1331 a of the Constitution if 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 
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 at Rs 2606413 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 Rs 495028 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
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 compensation 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 Rs32 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
990 In appeal the Assistant Settlement Commissioner accepted the respondents 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
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
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
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
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 displaced person for this purpose
It is urged that the respondent could not obtain more than the maximum amount prescribed by Appendix VIII under Rule 16
It is submitted that the combined effect of Rules 16 to 21 interpreted in the light of the scheme of the Act is that the amount of compensation payable to an individual cannot in any case exceed Rs 2 lacs
Rule 21 is especially relied upon
It says 21
Mixed claims
Where a person holds a number of verified claims in different capacities the total compensation payable to him shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of rule 18 19 and 20
It is true that the Act is intended for payment of compensation for rehabilitation of displaced persons and matters connected therewith
There is however nothing in the Act to prevent a claimant from making a gift or a will in respect of the amount he may be entitled to get
No provision of the Act takes away rights of transfer of or inheritance to verified claims
Nothing like an abatement or extinction of a claim by the death of the claimant is provided for by the Act
Inheritance to and devolution of rights of claimants are clearly beyond the purview or scheme of the Act
They are untouched by the provisions of the Act and are governed by other provisions of law
The statutory rights of claimants to compensation which crystallize on assessment and verification of claims are separate rights to property of each claimant covered by the wide definition of property in Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act
They cannot evaporate or vanish suddenly with the 991 death of a claimant
Rules framed under Section 40 of the Act have to be and are those reasonably necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act
They cannot go beyond the objects for which they can be framed
Those objects are confined to determination and payment of compensation for what was left in Pakistan and do not extend to deprivation of anything acquired in India in capacities other than those relevant for purposes of compensation
In the instant case the right of the respondent as a legatee under the will of Jai Singh was recognised separately in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act
The respondent thus acquired a right which was different in character from his claim as a displaced person
After having gone through the Rules 17 to 20 we are unable to construe Rule 21 as an authority for clubbing together of a claim as well as a separate right of a claimant as a legatee under a will which is distinct from the displaced person s claim to Compensation as a displaced person
The right of such a legatee stands on a different footing from a claim made under Section 4 of the Act for payment of compensation or a rehabilitation grant
The amount of compensation or a rehabilitation grant is payable to a displaced person under the provisions of the Act
A dispute decided under Section 9 of the Act is very different in character from a claim for compensation or rehabilitation as a displaced person
It could relate to a right by inheritance to or by succession under a will of another claimant
But each person has to be paid separately as indicated by Rule 17
Great reliance was placed on Rule 18 on behalf of the appellants
This rule lays down 18
Compensation to be determined on the total value of all claims
For the purpose of determining the compensation payable to an applicant the Regional Settlement Commissioner shall except as otherwise provided in these rules add up the assessed value of all claims of the applicant in respect of all kinds of properties other than agricultural land situated in a rural area left by him in West Pakistan and the compensation shall be assessed on the total value of all such claims
This rule shows that only different kinds of claims of each displaced person in properties left by him in West Pakistan which can be clubbed together
It does not deal with rights or claims of another genus which may devolve upon a claimant in his capacity as an heir or a legatee of another displaced person who may have acquired a separate right of his own as a claimant to compensation under the Act
Clubbing together of claims in different kinds of properties has reference to an individual s claim to compensation and rehabilitation and not to claims of different displaced persons which could by transfer or devolution vest separately in an individual
Rule 19 deals with compensation payable to joint families and Rule 19A prescribes maximum amounts payable in such cases
Rule 19B refers to compensation ordinarily payable to kartas of joint families
Rule 20 provides for the assessment of compensation of a co owner
992 These are the different types of claims of the same displaced person in different capacities as claimant in each capacity to compensation due to himself alone
There is no provision for clubbing together of compensation to different displaced persons each with a right of his own except as members of joint families which are treated as legal entities by themselves
The rights of a successor of another displaced person are outside the rule
There is nothing in the Act or the rules framed thereunder to conflict with this natural and ordinary interpretation of fairly clear and simple language used
The judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court H R Khanna CJ and section N Shankar J by which the Writ Petition of the respondent was allowed shows that it had been conceded in the High Court on behalf of the Rehabilitation Department that Rule 18 would not apply to the case of the respondent before us
The Division Bench had relied upon an earlier decision of the Punjab High Court in Karam Singh vs Union of India  Ors
1 where upon similar facts it had been held It is significant that in Rule 18 it is clearly stated that the compensation has to be determined on the total value of all claims pertaining to properties left by a claimant in West Pakistan
Therefore it is the property left by a claimant in West Pakistan
Therefore it is the property left by the petitioner to which he can make a claim
The property left by his uncle cannot be said to be the property left by him within rule 18
Properties left by a joint family are properties which the claimant who claims to be a member of the joint family can properly be said to have left in West Pakistan
Though the capacity in which he held those properties and so also in the case of properties held by him as a co sharer with other persons is different from the capacity in which the properties left by him in West Pakistan in his personal and exclusive occupation are concerned
This cannot be said to be the case where he gets the property of another displaced person by reason of inheritance or by transfer
The capacities contemplated by Rule 21 are set out in Rule 18 19 and 20 and in any case have to be analogous to them
We find ourselves in entire agreement with the view adopted by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and dismiss this appeal with costs
PHP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent a displace person from Pakistan had a verified claim of more than Rs 32 lacs from compensation under the Displaced Persons Compensation  Rehabilitation Act 1954
His uncle Jai Singh had also a verified claim of about Rs 26 lacs
Jai Singh executed a will by which a portion of his share in the compensation was bequeathed to the respondent
Jai Singh died
The Assistant Settlement Officer clubbed together the individual claim of the respondent and the share of the legacy and awarded the maximum compensation of Rs 2 lacs under rule 16
Respondent objected to the clubbing on the ground that the character of the share Jai Singh was that of a legacy and not of compensation
On an appeal the Assistant Settlement Commissioner accepted the respondent s contention
The Regional Settlement Commissioner however revised the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and restored the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer
The appeal to the Settlement Commissioner filed by the respondent failed
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashed the orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner
In an appeal by certificate under Article 1331 a it was contended by the appellant that the purpose of the Act was to compensate and rehabilitate displaced persons subject to a maximum limit
Combined effect of rules 16 to 21 interpreted in the light of the scheme of the Act was said to be that the amount of compensation payable to an individual cannot in any case exceed Rs 2 lacs
Dismissing the appeal  HELD  1
There is nothing in the Act to prevent a claimant from making a gift or will in respect of the amount he might be entitled to get
No provision of the Act takes away rights of transfer of or inheritance to verified claims
Nothing like an abatement or an extinction of a claim by the death of the claimant is provided for by the Act
The statutory rights of claimants to compensation are covered by the wide definition of property in section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act
They cannot evaporate or vanish suddenly with the death of a claimant
Rules framed under section 40 of the Act have to be and are those reasonably necessary for carrying out the purposes of the article They cannot go beyond the objects for which they can be framed
The objects are determination and payment of compensation and do not extend to deprivation of anything acquired in India
990 F H 991 A 2
The right of the respondent as a legatee was different in character from his claim as a displaced person
There is no provision for clubbing together of compensation to different displaced persons each with a right of his own except as members of joint families which are treated as legal entities by themselves
The rights of a successor of another displaced person are outside the rule
The 989 judgment of the Punjab High Court in the case of Karam Singh vs Union of India IIR 1964 1 Punjab 742 approved
991 C 992 A