Case: Charan Dass Vs. Union of India and Others

The appeal arises out of certain orders passed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The appellant, Charan Dass and respondents 3 to 5 were displaced persons who came to the then State of East Punjab and applied for suitable accommodation to be given to them. The property in dispute is situate at 40/41, Ghosi Mandi, Ambala Cantt. which was allotted to the appellant and respondents 3 to 5. At first the entire property was allotted to the appellant, Charan Dass, in pursuance of an order dated May 19, 1959 by way of some sort of adjustment of his verified claim. Subsequently, portions of the property allotted to the appellant were transferred to respondents Sunder Singh and Kartar Sigh. The appellant filed an appeal against this allotment to the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner who by his order dated April 27, 1960 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to dispose of the property after hearing the parties and considering the valuation reports. After the order of remand, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner by his order dated January 16, 1961 divided the house into two portions, the front portion being allotted to Charan Dass and the back portion to Sunder Singh and Kartar Singh. Smt. Krishna Wanti who had been deprived of her portion filed an appeal before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who again remanded the case for further division of the property according to Rules.

Reasoning:
It is well settled that a statute is to be construed to operate retrospectively so as to take away or impair a vested or substantive right, unless that intention is made manifest by language so plain and unmistakable that there is no possibility of any choice of meanings. If the enactment is expressed in language, which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only. The retrospectivity of a procedural statute will not however affect substantive rights which have already vested in a citizen3. As a result of the decision of the High Court and the observations made therein, extracted above, Rule 30 stood restored to its original position and in respect of the property in dispute the logical consequence, therefore, of the decision of the PunjabHaryana High Court which, in our opinion, had taken a correct view, the position was that the auction proceedings stood annulled and the parties stood restored to the status quo ante.