Case: H.K. Choudhury, Regional Settlement Commissioner Vs. Shri Issardas Kundanmal Motiani and Others

1. These five appeals by special leave raise a common question of interpretation of R. 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and 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 out2. The respondent, Lachmandas Hotechand Kripalani, 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 underthe 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 situate 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 respondents claim was that he owned 1/4 share of 731 acres and 14 ghuntas standing in the name of Fatehchand. The Claim Officer, by order dated October 7, 1952, accepted the claim and assessed his claim as 94.3 standard acres3. On July 2, 1955, the respondent applied for compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (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 along with 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 cosharers 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. 10,701 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 1/4th share. The compensation on 376 Standard Acres and 12 Units works out to 108 Standard Acres 0-3/10 Units as per scale indicated in R. 51. This converted in terms of money as per R. 56 comes to Rs. 42,806. The petitioners 1/4th share would be Rs. 10,701.4. 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 Arts. 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 Arts. 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, 19555. The appellant having obtained special leave, the appeals are now before us.

Reasoning:
13. The heading "Special Provision for payment of compensation to joint families" is general. So is sub-r. (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 S. 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 claim14. 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. 19(1). His main argument that no rule in Chapter IV applies to claims in respect of agricultural land we have already rejected15. The learnedAttorney-Generalthen 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 to 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 claimants as co-owners, the unit for the assessment of compensation shall be the share of each co-owner and the compensation shall he payable in respect of each such shares as if a claim in respect thereof has been filed and verified separately. The learned, 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 unequity 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 2016. 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.