PETITIONER: THE REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER Vs. RESPONDENT: SUNDERDAS BHASIN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/04/1962 BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA CITATION: 1963 AIR 181 1963 SCR (2) 534 ACT: Rehabilitation of Displaced persons-Compensation for rural buildings-Not payable for rural building valued at less than Rs. 10,000-More than one rural building each valued as less than Rs. 10,000-Whether value can be added up to reach total of Rs 10,000-Displaced Persons (Compenssation and Rehabilitation), Rules, r. 65. HEADNOTE: The respondent, a displaced person, had agricultural land as well as houses in the rural area in what is now West Pakistan. Each house was valued at less than Rs. 10,000/. but the total value of all the houses was more than Rs. 10,600/He was allowed 2-1/2 acres of land in lieu of the agricultural land left by him. He applied for compensation for the rural houses. This claim was rejected on the ground that it was barred by r. 65 Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules. Rule 65(2) provided that any person to whom less than 4 acres of agricultural land had been allotted shall not be entitled to receive compensation separately in respect of any rural building the assessed value of which was less than Rs. 1O,000/-. The respondent contended that in order to determine the limit of Rs. 10,000 in r. 65(2) the value of all the rural buildings should be added up. Held, that r. 65(2) applied to the case- and the respondent was not entitled to compensation for the rural houses left by him in Pakistan. When r. 65(2) speaks of any building the assessed value of which is Rs. 10,000/- it refers to each building being of less than that value; does not 535 contemplate the adding up of the value of more than one building. The complaint that no compensation had been provided for buildings valued at less than Rs. 10,000 was not correct. For such cases r. 57 provided for the allotment of a house or a site with building grant in addition to the agricultural land. Under the Inter-Dominion Agreement it was decided to treat buildings of a certain value as substantial and buildings of lower value as mere appendages to agricultural land, the Rules give effect to that agreement. Chanapdas Mukhi v. Union of India, I.L.R. (1960) 1 Punj. 153, approved. Totaram Teckchand v. H. K. Choudhary, A. I.R. (1960) Bom. 528, not approved. Makhanlal Malhotra v. Union of India (1961) 2 S.C.R. 120, referred to. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 294 of 1960.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
October 3, 1958, of Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ
Case No. 39 of 1957.
H. N. Sanglal, Additional Solicitor General of India, M.
S. Bindra and P. D. Menon, for the appellants.
Naunit LaL, for the respondent.
N. N. Keswani, for the intervener.
1962. April 27. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
WANCHOOO, J.-The short question raised in this appeal by
special leave is whether it is possible to add up the value
of more than one rural building, each of which is less than
Rs.10,000/- or Rs.20,000/in order to reach the total of Rs.
10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of taking the case
for compensation for rural buildings out of the ambit of
r.65 of the Rules framed under the Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
536
(44 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The
brief facts necessary for this purpose are these. The
respondent is a displaced person who migrated from what is
now part of West Pakistan to India. It appears that he had
agricultural land as well as houses in the rural area in the
place from where he migrated. He was allowed 2-1/2 acres of
land in the Punjab in lieu of the agricultural land left by
him in what is now Pakistan. In addition he also left
behind a house and a shop. He claimed Rs. 12,000/for the
house and Rs. 8,000/- for the shop as compensation. The
Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed his claim to the
extent of Rs. 6,674/- for the house and Rs. 6,120/- for the
shop, the total thus coming to Rs. 12,796/-. This was
adjudged in March 1955. Thereafter, the respondent made an
application to the Settlement Officer Jaipur in March 1956
for compensation under the Act. This claim of his was
however rejected. by the Assistant Settlement Officer Jaipur
on the ground that it could not be entertained in view of r.
65 of the Rules, as he was allotted agricultural land to the
extent of 2-1/2 acres. The respondent then appealed to the
Regional Settlement Commissioner who upheld the order of the
Assistant Settlement Officer. Thereafter the respondent
filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan and
the main contention raised by him there was that in order to
determine the limit of Rs. 10,000/- provided in r. 65(2) the
value of all the rural buildings left by him in Pakistan
should be added, up and if the total is more than Rs.
10,000/- he is entitled to compensation. This contention
has been accepted by the High Court which directed that the
respondent should be paid compensation to which he was
entitled under the Rules for the rural buildings left by him
the value of which collectively was more than Rs. 1O,000/-.
It is this order of the High Court which is challenged
before us in the present appeal.
537
It may be mentioned that this question has been raised in
three High Courts. The Punjab High Court, by a Full Bench
decision in Chanan das Mukhi v. the Union of India (1) held
that in order that a person may be entitled to compensation
for rural buildings left in Pakistan and thus take the case
out of the ambit or r. 65 it is necessary that the rural
buildings left by him should each be of the value of Rs.
10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/- or more, as the case may be, and
that a displaced person is not entitled to compensation if
he has left more than one rural building, the value of each
being less than Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/-, though the
total value of such buildings left by him may be more than
Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/-, as the ease may be. The
Bombay High Court on the other hand where a similar question
was raised has taken the same view as the Rajasthan High
Court in Totaram Teckchand v. H.K. Choudhari (2). What we
have to determine therefore is which of these two views is
correct.
Rule 65 is in these terms
“65. Separate compensation for rural building
not to be paid in certain cases.
(1) Any person to whom four acres or more of
agricultural land have been allotted shall not
be entitled to receive compensation separately
in respect of his verified claim for any rural
building the assessed value of which is less
than Rs. 20,000/-
(2) Any person to whom less than four acres
of agricultural land have been allotted, shall
not be entitled to receive compensation
separately in respect of his verified claim
for any rural building the assessed value of
which is less than Rs. 10,000/-.
(1) I.L.R. [1960] 1 Punj. 153.
(2) A.T. R. [1960] Bom. 528.
538
Though the point in dispute in the present appeal arises on
r. 65 (2), it is clear that what we say about r. 65 (2) will
equally apply to r. 65 (1), the only difference between the
two sub-rules being that in one case the value of the rural
building, is Rs.20,000/while in the other it is Rs. 10,000/-
and in one case the allotment of agricultural land is four
or more acres and in the other case of less than four acres.
It is urged on behalf of the appellant that r. 65 was framed
primarily in pursuance of an inter Dominion agreement by
which it was agreed that no compensation should be payable
for a rural building where its value is less than
Rs.20,000/-. It is further urged that the reason for this
rule was that a rural building worth less than Rs.20,000/
was treated as an adjunct to the agricultural land left by a
displaced person in Pakistan and it was decided to give
compensation for any rural building which was less than Rs
20,000/- in value by other ways and not as compensation.
This other way is provided in r. 57 of the Rules. Rule 57
provides that a displaced person having a verified claim in
respect of agricultural land who has settled in a rural area
and to whom agricultural land has been allotted, may be
allotted a house in addition to such land. The rule further
provides that where no house is available for allotment in
the village in which the land is allotted, the allottee may
be granted, if he has been allotted agricultural land not
exceeding ten standard acres, a site measuring 400 square
yards and a building grant of Rs.400/-, and if he has been
allotted agricultural land exceeding ten standard acres but
not exceeding 50 standard acres, a site measuring 400 square
yards and a building grant of Rs. 600/- and if he has been
allotted agricultural land exceeding ten standard acres but
not exceeding 50 standard acres, a site measuring 600 square
yards and a building grant of Rs. 600/-. It is said that r.
57 thus provides
539
for compensation where a building left by a displaced person
in Pakistan is less than Rs.20,000/or Rs. 10,000/- in value
as the case may be. Further, it is pointed out that there
is another provision in the Rules, namely r. 97, which deals
with certain contingencies where the allottee has refused
the allotment of agricultural land or where such allotment
has been cancelled. It is therefore urged that when r. 65
provides that no compensation would be given for any rural
building which was worth less than Rs.20,000/- or
Rs.10,000/- it referred to the value of each building and
the case could not be taken out of the ambit of r. 65 if a
displaced person bad left more than one rural building and
the value of all such buildings was more than Rs.10,000/- or
Rs.20,000/- taken together. The reason for this, according
to the appellant, is the provision in r. 57.
On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the respondent
that if r. 65 is not unambiguous on this point and can have
two meanings, it should be so interpreted as to favour the
displaced person so that he may get some compensation for
the rural buildings left by him in Pakistan, It is urged
further that the words “any rural building” in r. 65 though
in singular, can be read in plural also in view of s. 13 of
the General Clauses Act, and that they should be so read in
order to help the displaced person in getting compensation.
In order to decide between the two rival contentions we have
to see the background in which r. 65 came to be framed, for
it is that background which will help in determining one way
or the other its proper interpretation. Rule 65 came up for
consideration in this Court once before, when it was
challenged as ultra vires on the ground that it made a
discrimination between rural building for which compensation
was payable only if they were
540
above certain value and urban buildings for which
compensation was payable, if they were of any value. The
constitutionality of r. 65 was upheld by this Court in
Makhanlal Malhotra v. The Union of India (1). In that, case
this Court went into the background which was responsible
for the apparent discrimination between rural buildings and
urban buildings. At an inter-Dominion Conference between
the Governments of India and Pakistan held at Karachi
between January 10 and 13, 1949, a permanent inter-Dominion
Commission was set up to consider the question of
administration, sale and transfer of evacuee property in
both the Dominions. In persuance of this decision the
question in respect of shops and houses in rural areas was
considered by the Commission at New Delhi on March II and
13, 1949. It was recommended at this meeting that buildings
in rural areas of value of Rs. 20,000/- or more should be
considered to be substantial buildings and the buildings
which were of lesser value than that were to be treated as
appendages of agriculture land and as such were to be
treated as “agricultural properties”. This shows that the
basis for purposes of value was the build. ing and the
ownership of the building had nothing to do with this limit.
It is this agreement which in substance is the basis of r.
65 though the rigor of this agreement has been softened by
making provisions of two kinds one for those to whom four
acres or more were allotted and the other for those to whom
less than four acres were allotted and the limit was kept at
Rs. 20,000/- in the case of the former while it was reduced
to Rs. 10,000/-in the case of the latter. But it is clear
from the agreement of March 1949 that compensation was to be
provided for an individual buildings worth Rs. 20,000/-or
more and other buildings of less value were to be treated as
appendages to the agricultural land owned by a displaced
person in Pakistan.
(1) (1961) 2 S.C.R. 120.
541
The intention behind the agreement obviously was to treat
only buildings which were individually more than Rs.
20,000/- as substantial buildings for which compensation
would be granted while other buildings each of which was
less than that value would not be considered substantial
buildings but would be treated as merely appendages to
agricultural properties. This value of Rs. 20,000/- has
been reduced to Rs. 10,000/- in r. 65 for those to whom less
than four acres was allotted, but this change is subject to
the same limitation i. e., where an individual building
worth either Rs. 10,000 in one case or Rs. 20,000/- in the
other was left in Pakistan compensation would be payable for
that building as such: but where an individual building left
in Pakistan was less than Rs. 20,000/- or Rs 10,000/as the
case may be, no compensation would be payable for it
separately even though more than one such building may have
been left behind by the same displaced person That seems to
be the scheme which was evolved under the Act for giving
compensation to displaced person. The general rules for
payment of compensation are to be found in Chapters IV, V
and VI of the Rules. Further, r. 44 in Chapter VII provides
for allotment of acquired evacuee houses in rural areas in
lieu of compensation Rule 47 then provides for payment of
compensation under Chap. VII subject to the provisions of
r. 65. It is clear therefore that the scheme of
compensation provided under the Rules is that where a person
has left both agricultural land and rural buildings in
Pakistan he was to be allotted agricultural land and for any
rural building which he might have left and each of which
might be less than Rs. 10,000/-or Rs. 20,000/- in value he
was to get what is provided by r. 57. But where any one
rural building left by him was worth more than Rs. 20,000/-
or Rs. 10,000/- as the case may be, he would get
compensation separately. The argument therefore on behalf
of the respondent which
542
to have impressed the High Court that no compensation was
given to displaced persons for buildings less ‘-)ban
Rs.20,000/- or Rs. 10,000/ , as the case may be, is not
borne out by the Rules. We have already referred to r. 57
in this connection and reading that with r. 65 it seems
clear that in view of the inter Dominion agreement, the
scheme was that where an individual building was worth more
than Rs.20,000/ or Rs.10,000/- as the case may be,
compensation would be payable separately under Chapters IV,
V and VI of the Rules. Further, under Chap. VII required
evacuee houses in rural areas may be allowed in lieu of
compensation. But if each individual building left by a
displaced person was less than Rs.20,000/- or Rs.10,000/- as
the case may be, though he may have left more than one he
would be compensated by allotment of a house or site with
building grant in addition to agricultural land as
contemplated in r. 57. The complaint therefore that no
compensation has been provided for a displaced person where
each building left by him was less than Rs.20,000/-or Rs,
10,000/- as the case may be, is not correct, though it may
be that in the case of each building worth less than
Rs.20,000/or Rs. 10,000/- the compensation may not be as in
the case of each building worth more than Rs. 20,000/- or
Rs. 10,000/- as the case May be.
The Problem however raised by the migration from that is now
West Pakistan to India. was so vast that it required all the
strength and ingenuity on behalf of the Government of Punjab
and the Government of India to meet it and the various taken
steps for that purpose are to be found in Chap. 1 of “Land
Settlement Manual” by Tarlok Singh, which is a book of
undoubted authenticity and value in this respect. It is in
that background and with the inter-Dominion agreement of
March 1949 in view that we have to approach the inter-
pretation of r.65. It is clear in that background
543
that when r. 65 speaks of any rural building the assessed
value of which is less than Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 10,000/- it
speaks of each building being of that value and,does not
contemplate to talling up of the value of a number of
buildings which a displaced person might have left behind
and the total value of which might be Rs. 20,000/- or Rs.
10,000/as the case may be. As was pointed by the Full Bench
of the Punjab High Court it is not correct to say that a
person owning a building in a nonurban area worth less than
the minimum mentioned in the rule receives no compensation,
and the fact is that every displaced person owning houses or
buildings in a rural area has been compensated under r. 57
and the only buildings left out of consideration were those
each of which was worth Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 10,000/-.
Reference in this connection may be made to Chap, IX of the
“land settlement Manual” by Tarlok Singh, where this matter
has been explained in detail. Therefore r. 57 having
provided for compensation for each building worth less than
Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 10,000/- as the case may be, r. 65
specifically prohibits separate compensation for such
buildings. Therefore, when r. 65 speaks of any building the
assessed value of which is Rs. 20,000/-or Rs. 10,000/- it
refers to each building being less than that value, as the
case may be.
So far as the respondent is concerned, he would also, if he
so desired, have been allotted either a house or a site
under r. 57 if he had decided to settle down in the village
in which he had been allotted agricultural land. It seems
however that he did not settle in that village and therefore
could not get the advantage of r. 57. That was however his
choice and he cannot complain that he is not made it
impossible for an allotment under r. 57 being made to him by
not setting down in the village in which agricultural land
was allotted to him. We cannot however give a meaning
544
to r. 65 inconsistent with the scheme which has been evolved
for meeting this vast problem simply because the respondent
(or those like him) did not chose to settle down in the
village in which he had been allotted agricultural land. If
he did not do so and in consequence he has suffered some
loss, the loss is of his own choice; and that is no reason
for interpreting r. 65 in such a way as to benefit persons
(like the respondent) who by their own choice did not avail
of the benefit which they would have got under r. 57.
Reading r. 65 in the background in which it came to be
prescribed there Can be no doubt that when it speaks of any
rural building the assessed value of which is Rs. 10,000/or
Rs. 20,000/- as the case may be, it speaks of each
individual building worth that much; it does not provide for
totaling up the value where a displaced person may have left
more than one building in West Pakistan. In the
circumstances s. 13 of the General Clauses Act would not
apply. That section specifically lays down that the
singular would include the plural unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context. What we have said
above would clearly show that considering the subject in
this case and the context in which the word “building” has
been used, it is the building that has to be taken into
account in determining the limits in r, 65 and not the owne
reship of the building. Where the building itself is worth
Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 10,000/- or more, as the case may be,
the case would be, taken out of r. 65. But there is in our
opinion no warrant in the context for building that the
ownership has to be taken into account and if an owner has a
number of buildings, each less than the prescribed limit,
the value of such buildings can be totalled up and
compensation claimed if the total is above the prescribed
limit. We are therefore of opinion that the view taken by
the High Court is incorrect and
545
this appeal must be allowed. We therefore allow the appeal
and set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the
writ petition. The High Court allowed no costs to the
respondent. We think in the- circumstances that the parties
should bear their own costs.
Appeal allowed.