Case: Joint Secretary To The Government Of India &amp; Ors Vs. Khillu Ram And Anr

The question arises on the followingNo. 2 in Tripri township in Patiala which is a government built property was allotted in 1950 to the first respondent Khillu Ram jointly with one Tara Chand and his son by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In 1951 both Tara Chand and his son Left Tripri to settle elsewhere and the second respondent Teju Mal applied for allotment of their share in the shop to him. By his order dated November 11, 1959 the Managing officer, Tripri and Rajpura, held that Teju Mal and Khillu Ram were in possession of the shop as allottees respectively of 2/3 and 1/3 shares therein. Aggrieved by the order of the Managing officer, the first respondent Khillu Ram preferred an appeal to the Settlement officer, Jullundur, who by his order dated February 12, 1962 set aside the order of the Managing officer and remanded the case for a fresh decision under rule 30 of the Rules. Rule 30 is in these terms:" Payment of compensation where an acquired evacuee property which is an allotable property is in occupation of more than one person. If more persons than one holding verified claims are in occupation of any acquired evacuee property which is an allotable property, the property shall be offered to the person whose gross compensation is the biggest and the other persons may be allotted such other acquired evacuee property which is allotable as may berule has a proviso and an explanation none of which is relevant for the present purpose. After remand the case was transferred to the Assistant Settlement officer who found that the gross compensation payable to the first respondent was higher than that of the rival claimant, Teju Mal and in terms of rule 30 allotted the entire shop to the first respondent by his order dated November 27, 1962. A revision petition against this order made by Teju Mal was dismissed by the Deputy Chief Settlement Officer on September 5, 1963. In the meantime, as stated already, rule 30 had be en abrogated with effect from August 13, 1963. Teju Mal then moved the Central Government under sec. 33 of the Act. Teju Mals application under sec. 33 was heard on February 25, 1964. The effect of deletion of rule 30 was that the properties which were in the occupation of more than one person were to be put to sale. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India who heard the application under sec. 33 held that the case should be governed by the Rules as amended in 1963 excluding rule 30, and accordingly by his order dated February 26, 1964 he set aside the order allotting the shop to the first respondent Khillu Ram and directed the property in question to be put to sale. The first respondent filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court for quashing the order passed under sec. 33. The Punjab High Court held that the subsequent deletion of rule 30 did not affect the existing rights of the first respondent and quashed the order of the Central Government made under sec. 33.

Reasoning: We are unable to accept this submission. The Act provides for the payment of compensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced persons and matters connected therewith. Under the Act a displaced person has a right to get compensation in the form and manner prescribed by the Act and the Rules framed there under. Rule 30 is in Chapter V of the Rules which deals with payment of compensation by transfer of acquired Evacuee Properties. Though the shop in question is a government built property and not an acquired evacuee property, rule 43 in Chapter VI of the Rules which provides for payment of compensation by transfer of government built property says that the "pro visions of rules 25 to 34 shall, so far as may be, apply to the transfer of any Government built property or Government plot under this Chapter". Rule 30 prescribes that where the property is in the occupation of more persons than one, it shall be offered to the person whose gross compensation is the highest. Clearly rule 30 deals not with the form of procedure but with a substantive right conferred by the Act on displaced persons. Mr.Sanghi described this rule as only a mode or manner of payment of compensation.This may be so, but the form and manner in which compensation is payable is also part of the right to get compensation. Rule 30 is not an instrument or machinery for asserting the right conferred by the Act; it does not regulate the procedure for settlement of disputes concerning that right. Therefore, the deletion of the rule in 1963 cannot affect pending actions. The rights of Khillu Ram and Teju Mal must be governed by rule 30 which was in force in 1959 when the dispute arose and was decided by the Managing officer. A full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pt. Dev Raj v. Union of India &ors.(A. I. R. 1974 Pun. 65) considering the same question which arises for determination in this appeal, held that "a displaced person has a right to the determination of his claim for compensation and its satisfaction in the prescribed manner and this is a substantive right", that so far as rule 30 is concerned "the right which a displaced person claims under this rulecannot be adversely affected or taken away unless it is expressly stated in the amending provision, or the language of theThis, in our opinion, is a correct statement of the law. Neither by express words nor by implication the amendment of the Rules in 1963 deleting rule 30 has been made retrospective in operation.