vil Appeals Nos 89 93 of 1964
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated August 30 1961 and June 13 1961 in Special Civil Application Nos 440 441509 510 and 7 of 1961
KS Chawla and RS Sachthey for the appellant in C As
8991 of 1964
79 CK Daphtary Attorney General KS Chawla and RN Sachthey for the appellant in CA NO 9364
NN Keshwani for the respondents in all the appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri J
These five appeals by special leave raise a common question of interpretation of r 19 of the Displaced Persons Compensation  Rehabilitation Rules 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Rules
It is common ground that nothing turns on any dissimilarity in the facts of each appeal
It will accordingly suffice if facts in Civil Appeal No 93 of 1964 are set out
The respondent Lachman Hotchand Kriplani is a displaced person from West Pakistan
He has three brothers
They owned 731 acres of agricultural land in District Nawabshah Taluka Nawab Shah Sind now in Pakistan
The respondent submitted a claim under the Displaced Persons Claims Act 1950 XLIV of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Claims Act
The word claim  was defined to mean assertion of a right to the ownership of or to any interest in i any immovable property in West Pakistan which is situated within an urban area or ii such class of property in any part of West Pakistan other than an urban area as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf in the official gazette
It is common ground that agricultural land in Sind was so notified
The respondent s claim was that he owned 14 share of 731 acres and 14 ghuntas standing in the name of Fatehehand
The Claim Officer by order dated October 7 1952 accepted the claim and assessed his claim as 94 3 standard acres
On July 2 1955 the respondent applied for compensation under the XLIV Of 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Act
In the application he stated that he was not a member of a Joint Hindu Family in Pakistan but his claim was as a co sharer alongwith three others who had filed separate claims
The Assistant Settlement Commissioner was however not satisfied with this assertion and after holding an enquiry by order dated March 3 1960 he held that the four alleged co sharers were members of a Joint Hindu Family and the whole agricultural land claim was to be treated as joint property
On August 29 1960 a statement of account was issued to the respondent
This statement showed that his claim was assessed as Rs 10701 gross compensation
This figure was arrived at as stated in the affidavit of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner thus The claim was assessed for 376 standard acres and 12 units out of which the petitioner had 14th share
The compensation on 376 Standard Acres and 12 Units works out to 108 Standard Acres 0 310 Units as per 80 scale indicated in Rule 51
This converted in terms of money as per Rule 56 comes to Rs 42806 The petitioner s 14th share would be Rs 10701 
The respondent then on October 28 1960 served a notice on the Regional Settlement Commissioner calling upon him to rectify the statement of account failing which he will be constrained to move the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
In this notice he claimed that r 20 applied to his case in the alternative he asserted that at least r 19 should be applied to him
In reply the Assistant Settlement Commissioner informed him that the calculation had been done correctly
Thereupon he filed a petition under articles 226 and 227 in the Bombay High Court
The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the statement of account furnished to the petitioner on August 29 1960 and directed that the respondent shall give the benefit of r 19 and determine the amount of compensation payable to him in accordance with the provisions of rr 19 51 and 56 and other rules of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules 1955
The appellant having obtained special leave the appeals are now before us
We may mention at the outset that in the High Court the respondent s counsel did not challenge the finding of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner that the respondent and his brothers were members of a joint family
The High Court came to the conclusion that r 19 applied to agricultural land
It found nothing in the scheme of the Rules or in the language of r 19 to support the claim of the Department that r 19 applied only to nonagricultural land
The learned Attorney General on behalf of the appellant challenges the conclusion of the High Court
He has taken us through various sections of the Compensation Act of 1954 and various rules to substantiate his contention
Let us then look at the Compensation Act and the Rules
The Compensation Act was enacted to provide for payment of compensation and rehabilitation grant to displaced persons and for matters connected therewith Verified claim is defined to mean inter alia a claim registered under the Displaced Persons Claims Act XLIV of 1950
It is not disputed that the claim of the respondent verified by order dated October 7 1952 is a verified claim
Section 4 provides for an application for the payment of compensation in the prescribed form to be made by a displaced person having a verified claim within a certain period
Section 5 provides that on receipt of an application under section 4 the Settlement Officer shall determine the amount of public dues if any recoverable from the applicant and shall forward the application and the record to the Settlement Commissioner
It will be noticed that a verified claim registered under the Claim Act 1950 includes claims to urban as well as certain agricultural land
Therefore both sections 4 and 81 5 apply to such agricultural land as has been made the subjectmatter of claim and verification under the Claims Act of 1950
Section 6 was referred to by the learned Attorney General but we have not been able to appreciate how it advances his case
Section 6 gives relief to certain banking companies in this way
If a banking company held a mortgage of an immovable property belonging to a displaced person in west Pakistan and that mortgage was subsisting at the date when the claim of the banking company was registered under the Claim Act 1950 and the displaced person is entitled to receive compensation in respect of any such property the banking company was entitled to various reliefs the appropriate relief depending on whether the compensation to the displaced person is payable 1 in cash or 2 in the form of transfer of any property or 3 in any other form
In this section immovable property would include agricultural land and it cannot be denied that the respondent is entitled to compensation at least in one of the three forms mentioned in sub
section 2
Section 71directs the Settlement Commissioner on receipt of the application trader section 5 to ascertain the amount of compensation having due regard to the nature of the verified claim and other circumstances of the case
Section 72 provides for the deduction of certain dues and the Settlement Commissioner then makes an order under section 73 ascertaining the net amount of compensation
Section 8 provides the form and manner of payment of compensation of the net compensation determined under section 73 as being payable to a displaced person
Subject to any rules that may be made the net compensation is payable in cash in government bonds or by sale to the displaced person of any property from the compensation pool and setting off the purchase money against the compensation payable to him etc
Section 82 enables rules to be made by the Central Government on various matters inter alia the scales according to which the form and the manner in which and the installments by which compensation may be paid to different classes of displaced persons
Section 40 enables rules to be made to carry out by the purposes of the Compensation Act
It is not necessary to refer to other sections of the Compensation Act
Before we deal with the 1955 Rules it is apparent that sections 4 5 6 7 and 8 do not in any manner distinguish between urban land and agricultural land as long as the agricultural land is the subject matter of a verified claim
If a person holding a verified claim in respect of agricultural land owespublic dues and public dues is defined very widely in section 2d to include all kind of loans not only from the Central Government but from a State Government also this has to be deducted under section 73
It is suggested that the expression net amount of compensation in section 73 means only cash compensation but we are unable to limit the expression thus in view of the scheme of sections 4 to 8 82 The Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by section 40 of the Compensation Act made the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules 1955
Chapter I contains various definitions Chapter II deals with procedure for submission of compensation application and determination of public dues
Rule 3 enables a displaced person having a verified claim to make an application for compensation
Rule 4 deals with the form of application and Appendix I is the form prescribed and Appendix II is the questionnaire which has to be answered
One question is important for our purpose
Under the heading 11
Particulars of claims under Displaced Persons Claims Act 1950 is mentioned a agricultural land index no VillageTehsilDistrict value assessed in standard acres cosharers in each property with respective shares if any property is mortgaged state mortgage money and name of the mortgagees
The rest of the rules upto r 9 in this Chapter deal with the scrutiny of the application and the determination of public dues
It is only necessary to notice r 62 which requires a Settlement Officer to send a duplicate copy of the application to the Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner for verification of the assessed value of the claim in respect of which the application has been made
Under r 10 the Settlement Officer is required to pass an order and send a copy of the order and the original application along with the records of the case to the Regional Settlement Commissioner
It will be seen that Chapter II does not distinguish between verified claims relating to urban property and rural property
Then we come to Chapter III which contains r 11
Under this rule the settlement Commissioner deals with the duplicate copy sent to him under r 62
He verities the assessed value of the claim as stated in the application with the final order in respect thereof in the claims record and returns the duplicate copy to the Regional Settlement Commissioner with such remarks as may be relevant for the determination of the amount of compensation
Chapter IV deals with determination of compensation
It will be remembered that section 5 of the Compensation Act requires the Settlement Officer to determine the amount of public dues and forward the application and the record of the case to the Settlement Commissioner and r 11 which we have just noticed requires the Settlement Commissioner Headquarters to send the duplicate copy to the Regional Settlement Commissioner
Rule 12 directs the Regional Settlement Commissioner to consolidate all these papers
Rule 12 obviously applies to application in respect of verified claims to agricultural land
As we have already said section 5 and r 11 applied to such verified claims
Rule 13 deals with determination of certain dues to banking companies under section 6 and any unsecured debt payable by an applicant in respect of which a communication has been received from any Tribunal under section 52 of the Displaced Persons Debt Adjustment Act 1951 LXX of 1951
Rule 14 directs that the public dues and the amounts referred to in Rule 13 83 shall be deducted from the amount of compensation in a certain order of priority
Rule 15 reads as follows Determination of net compensation After deducting the amount referred to in rule 14 the Regional Settlement Commissioner or an Assistant Settlement Commissioner or a Settlement Officer or an Assistant Settlement Officer having jurisdiction and duly authorised by the Regional Settlement Commissioner shall pass an order determining the net amount of compensation payable to the applicant in respect of his verified claim and shall prepare a summary in the form specified in Appendix VII Abstract of particulars
It is significant that Appendix Vii has a column for agricultural land and a column for remarks regarding application of r 19
Pausing here it is difficult to hold that rr 12 13 and 14 do not apply to applications for compensation in respect of agricultural lands which are the subject matter of a verified claim
There fore we must reject the contention that Chapter IV in which r 19 occurs does not deal with agricultural lands at all
It may be conceded that r 16 does not apply to agricultural lands
The scale compensation in respect of agricultural lands which are the subject matter of a verified claim is expressly dealt with else where
Rule 51 which provides that the scale of allotment of land as compensation in respect of a verified claim for agricultural land shall be the same as in quasi permanent land allotment scheme in the State of Punjab and Patiala and the East Punjab States Union as set out in Appendix XIV
The explanation further provides that if any public dues are recoverable the allocable area shall be reduced correspondingly
Rule 49 read with r 56 enables the compensation due on the verified claim for agricultural land to be converted into cash if a person wishes to have his claim satisfied against property other than agricultural land
Rule 18 expressly excludes agricultural land from its purview
What emerges from a consideration of these rules in Chapter IV is that we must consider each rule and see whether it has application to a claim for compensation in respect of agricultural land
Rule 19 reads thus Special Provision for payment of compensation to Joint families Where a claim relates to properties left by the members of an undivided Hindu family in West Pakistan thereinafter referred to as the joint family compensation shall be computed in the manner hereinafter provided in this rule
2 where on the 26th Sept 1955 hereinafter referred to as the relevant date the joint family consisted of a two or three members entitled to claim partition 84 the compensation payable to such family shall be computed by dividing the verified claim into two equal shares and calculating the compensation separately on each such share b four or more members entitled to claim partition the compensation payable to such family shall be computed by dividing the verified claim into three equal shares and calculating the compensation separately on each such share
3 For the purpose of calculating the number of the member of a joint family under sub rule 2 a person who on the relevant date a was less than 18 years of age b was a lenial descendant in the main line of another living member of joint Hindu family entitled to claim partition shall be excluded Provided that where a member of a joint family has died during the period commencing on the 14th August 1947 and ending on the relevant date leaving behind on the relevant date all or any of the following heirs namely a a widow or widows b a son or sons whatever the age of such son or sons but no lenial ascendant in the main line then all such heirs shall notwithstanding anything contained in this rule be reckoned as one member of the joint Hindu family
Explanation For the purpose of this rule the question whether a family is joint or separate shall be determined with reference to the status of the family on the 14th day of August 1947 and every member of a joint family shall be deemed to be joint notwithstanding the fact that he had separated from the family after the date
The heading Special Provision for payment of compensation to joint families is general
So is sub rule 1
The word properties  is general and would include agricultural land
That this is the meaning is also borne out if we consider the word claim
The word claim must have reference to the claim in the application to be made under section 4 read with rr 3 and 4 and as we have already noticed the application would include a claim in respect of agricultural land if it is the subject matter of a verified claim
The learned Attorney General has not been able to point to any principle of construction which would enable us to limit the scope of the general words in r 191
His main argument that no rule in Chapter IV applies to claims in respect of agricultural land we have already rejected
85 The learned Attorney General then urges that the scheme of the Rules is to provide in separate chapters for compensation in respect of various classes of properties and he says that Chapter VIII provides for compensation in respect of verified claim for agricultural land situated in rural area and the rules contained in the chapter are the only rules that govern the grant of compensation
But none of the rules in this chapter deals with what is t9 happen if the agricultural land was held by a joint family in West Pakistan or if the agricultural land was held by co owners in West Pakistan
Even if a Joint Hindu Family is treated as a unit for some purposes in some laws co owners are very rarely treated as a unit and it would require express language to treat co owners as a unit and award compensation to them as a unit
However r 20 recognises the general rule and provides that where a claim relates to property left in West Pakistan which is owned by more than one claimant as co owners the unit for the assessment of compensation shall be the share of each co owner and the compensation shall be payable in respect of each such share as if a claim in respect thereof has been filed and verified separately
The learned Attorney General when asked said that even r 20  would not apply to a claim in respect of agricultural land but we are unable to accede to this contention
It would be the height of  inequity to hold this
In other words rr 19 and 20 enable the authorities to determine the unit for assessment of compensation
This subject is not dealt with in Chapter VIII which deals with how the unit be it an individual a member of Joint Hindu Family or a co owner is to be compensated
There is nothing in Chapter VIII which modifies or overrides rr 19 and 20
Accordingly in agreement with the High Court we hold that r 19 will apply to the claim of the respondent in respect of agricultural land left by him as a member of the Joint Hindu Family
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
As stated in the beginning it is common ground that if this appeal fails the other appeals must also fail
They are accordingly dismissed with costs
There will be one hearing fee in them
Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The respondent who had a verified claim applied for compensation under the 
He alleged that he was a co sharer along with his brothers in agricultural property in West Pakistan and claimed his share of the compensation
The Assistant Settlement Officer held that the alleged co sharers were members of a joint Hindu family and that the agricultural property was joint property
He then calculated the compensation on the joint property as per rr
51 and 56 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules 1955
The respondent thereupon filed a petition in the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution contending that on the finding that the respondent and his brothers constituted a joint family the unit for assessment of compensation should first be determined according to r 19 which makes special provision for payment of compensation to joint families before compensation was calculated
The High Court allowed the petition
In the appeal to this Court it was contended that r 19 was inapplicable as that rule does not apply to agricultural land
HELD The High Court was right in holding that the rule applied to the claim of the respondent in respect of the agricultural land
Chapter IV of the Rules in which r19 occurs contains some rules which apply to applications for compensation in respect of agricultural lands also
Therefore it cannot be said that the Chapter does not deal with agricultural lands at all
Each rule must be considered to see whether it has application to a claim for compensation in respect of agricultural land
So considered there is no principle of construction by which the scope of the general words in r 19 could be limited so as not to apply to agricultural land
Chapter VIII of the Rules provides for compensation in respect of verified claims for agricultural lands in rural areas and only deals with how a unit that has been determined is to be compensated
There is nothing in that Chapter which modifies or overrides r19 which enables the authorities to determine the unit for assessment of compensation in the case of joint families
83 D E 85 A F