{"id":172792,"date":"1962-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962"},"modified":"2015-08-18T14:26:47","modified_gmt":"2015-08-18T08:56:47","slug":"the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962","title":{"rendered":"The Regional Settlement … vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Regional Settlement … vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 181, \t\t 1963 SCR (2) 534<\/div>\n
Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSUNDERDAS BHASIN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/04\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR  181\t\t  1963 SCR  (2) 534\n\n\nACT:\nRehabilitation\tof Displaced persons-Compensation for  rural\nbuildings-Not payable for rural building valued at less than\nRs. 10,000-More than one rural building each valued as\tless\nthan Rs. 10,000-Whether value can be added up to reach total\nof   Rs\t  10,000-Displaced   Persons   (Compenssation\t and\nRehabilitation), Rules, r. 65.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent, a displaced person, had agricultural land as\nwell  as  houses  in  the rural area in\t what  is  now\tWest\nPakistan.   Each house was valued at less than Rs.  10,000\/.\nbut  the  total value of all the houses was  more  than\t Rs.\n10,600\/He  was\tallowed 2-1\/2 acres of land in lieu  of\t the\nagricultural land left by him.\tHe applied for\tcompensation\nfor the rural houses.  This claim was rejected on the ground\nthat it was barred by r. 65 Displaced Persons  (Compensation\nand  Rehabilitation)  Rules.  Rule 65(2) provided  that\t any\nperson\tto whom less than 4 acres of agricultural  land\t had\nbeen allotted shall not be entitled to receive\tcompensation\nseparately  in\trespect of any rural building  the  assessed\nvalue  of which was less than Rs. 1O,000\/-.  The  respondent\ncontended that in order to determine the limit of Rs. 10,000\nin  r. 65(2) the value of all the rural buildings should  be\nadded up.\nHeld, that r. 65(2) applied to the case- and the  respondent\nwas  not entitled to compensation for the rural houses\tleft\nby  him in Pakistan.  When r. 65(2) speaks of  any  building\nthe  assessed  value of which is Rs. 10,000\/- it  refers  to\neach building being of less than that value; does not\n\t\t\t    535\ncontemplate  the  adding up of the value of  more  than\t one\nbuilding.   The\t complaint  that no  compensation  had\tbeen\nprovided  for buildings valued at less than Rs.\t 10,000\t was\nnot  correct.\tFor  such  cases  r.  57  provided  for\t the\nallotment  of  a  house or a site  with\t building  grant  in\naddition to the agricultural land.  Under the Inter-Dominion\nAgreement  it  was decided to treat buildings of  a  certain\nvalue  as substantial and buildings of lower value  as\tmere\nappendages  to agricultural land, the Rules give  effect  to\nthat agreement.\nChanapdas  Mukhi  v. Union of India, I.L.R. (1960)  1  Punj.\n153, approved.\nTotaram\t Teckchand v. H. K. Choudhary, A. I.R.\t(1960)\tBom.\n528, not approved.\nMakhanlal  Malhotra v. Union of India<\/a> (1961) 2\tS.C.R.\t120,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 294 of 1960.
\nAppeals\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated
\nOctober 3, 1958, of Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil\tWrit
\nCase No. 39 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
H.   N.\t Sanglal, Additional Solicitor General of India,  M.
\nS. Bindra and P. D. Menon, for the appellants.
\nNaunit LaL, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
N. N. Keswani, for the intervener.\n<\/p>\n
1962.  April 27.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nWANCHOOO,  J.-The  short question raised in this  appeal  by
\nspecial leave is whether it is possible to add up the  value
\nof more than one rural building, each of which is less\tthan
\nRs.10,000\/- or Rs.20,000\/in order to reach the total of\t Rs.
\n10,000\/- or Rs. 20,000\/- for the purpose of taking the\tcase
\nfor  compensation  for rural buildings out of the  ambit  of
\nr.65  of  the  Rules  framed  under  the  Displaced  Persons
\n(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
\n536<\/span>
\n(44  of\t 1954) (hereinafter referred to as  the\t Act).\t The
\nbrief  facts  necessary\t for this purpose  are\tthese.\t The
\nrespondent  is a displaced person who migrated from what  is
\nnow part of West Pakistan to India.  It appears that he\t had
\nagricultural land as well as houses in the rural area in the
\nplace from where he migrated.  He was allowed 2-1\/2 acres of
\nland in the Punjab in lieu of the agricultural land left  by
\nhim  in\t what  is now Pakistan.\t In addition  he  also\tleft
\nbehind\ta house and a shop.  He claimed Rs.  12,000\/for\t the
\nhouse  and  Rs. 8,000\/- for the shop as\t compensation.\t The
\nAdditional Settlement Commissioner allowed his claim to\t the
\nextent of Rs. 6,674\/- for the house and Rs. 6,120\/- for\t the
\nshop,  the  total  thus coming to  Rs.\t12,796\/-.  This\t was
\nadjudged in March 1955.\t Thereafter, the respondent made  an
\napplication  to the Settlement Officer Jaipur in March\t1956
\nfor  compensation  under  the Act.  This claim\tof  his\t was
\nhowever rejected. by the Assistant Settlement Officer Jaipur
\non the ground that it could not be entertained in view of r.
\n65 of the Rules, as he was allotted agricultural land to the
\nextent of 2-1\/2 acres.\tThe respondent then appealed to\t the
\nRegional Settlement Commissioner who upheld the order of the
\nAssistant  Settlement  Officer.\t Thereafter  the  respondent
\nfiled a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan and
\nthe main contention raised by him there was that in order to
\ndetermine the limit of Rs. 10,000\/- provided in r. 65(2) the
\nvalue  of  all the rural buildings left by him\tin  Pakistan
\nshould\tbe  added,  up and if the total\t is  more  than\t Rs.
\n10,000\/-  he is entitled to compensation.   This  contention
\nhas been accepted by the High Court which directed that\t the
\nrespondent  should  be\tpaid compensation to  which  he\t was
\nentitled under the Rules for the rural buildings left by him
\nthe value of which collectively was more than Rs.  1O,000\/-.
\nIt  is\tthis  order of the High Court  which  is  challenged
\nbefore us in the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
 537<\/span><\/p>\n
It  may be mentioned that this question has been  raised  in
\nthree  High Courts.  The Punjab High Court, by a Full  Bench
\ndecision in Chanan das Mukhi v. the Union of India (1)\theld
\nthat in order that a person may be entitled to\tcompensation
\nfor rural buildings left in Pakistan and thus take the\tcase
\nout  of\t the ambit or r. 65 it is necessary that  the  rural
\nbuildings  left\t by him should each be of the value  of\t Rs.
\n10,000\/-  or Rs. 20,000\/- or more, as the case may  be,\t and
\nthat  a displaced person is not entitled to compensation  if
\nhe has left more than one rural building, the value of\teach
\nbeing  less  than Rs. 10,000\/- or Rs. 20,000\/-,\t though\t the
\ntotal  value of such buildings left by him may be more\tthan
\nRs.  10,000\/-  or  Rs. 20,000\/-, as the ease  may  be.\t The
\nBombay High Court on the other hand where a similar question
\nwas  raised  has taken the same view as the  Rajasthan\tHigh
\nCourt  in Totaram Teckchand v. H.K. Choudhari (2).  What  we
\nhave  to determine therefore is which of these two views  is
\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Rule 65 is in these terms
\n\t      “65.  Separate compensation for rural building
\n\t      not to be paid in certain cases.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   Any person to whom four acres or more of
\n\t      agricultural land have been allotted shall not
\n\t      be entitled to receive compensation separately
\n\t      in respect of his verified claim for any rural
\n\t      building\tthe assessed value of which is\tless
\n\t      than Rs. 20,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   Any person to whom less than four  acres
\n\t      of agricultural land have been allotted, shall
\n\t      not   be\tentitled  to  receive\tcompensation
\n\t      separately  in respect of his  verified  claim
\n\t      for  any rural building the assessed value  of
\n\t      which is less than Rs. 10,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1) I.L.R. [1960] 1 Punj. 153.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2) A.T. R. [1960] Bom. 528.\n<\/p>\n
\t      538<\/span><\/p>\n
Though the point in dispute in the present appeal arises  on
\nr. 65 (2), it is clear that what we say about r. 65 (2) will
\nequally apply to r. 65 (1), the only difference between\t the
\ntwo sub-rules being that in one case the value of the  rural
\nbuilding, is Rs.20,000\/while in the other it is Rs. 10,000\/-
\nand  in one case the allotment of agricultural land is\tfour
\nor more acres and in the other case of less than four acres.
\nIt is urged on behalf of the appellant that r. 65 was framed
\nprimarily  in  pursuance of an inter Dominion  agreement  by
\nwhich  it was agreed that no compensation should be  payable
\nfor   a\t rural\tbuilding  where\t its  value  is\t less\tthan
\nRs.20,000\/-.  It is further urged that the reason  for\tthis
\nrule  was that a rural building worth less  than  Rs.20,000\/
\nwas treated as an adjunct to the agricultural land left by a
\ndisplaced  person  in Pakistan and it was  decided  to\tgive
\ncompensation  for any rural building which was less than  Rs
\n20,000\/-  in  value by other ways and not  as  compensation.
\nThis  other way is provided in r. 57 of the Rules.  Rule  57
\nprovides that a displaced person having a verified claim  in
\nrespect of agricultural land who has settled in a rural area
\nand  to\t whom agricultural land has been  allotted,  may  be
\nallotted a house in addition to such land.  The rule further
\nprovides  that where no house is available for allotment  in
\nthe village in which the land is allotted, the allottee\t may
\nbe  granted, if he has been allotted agricultural  land\t not
\nexceeding  ten standard acres, a site measuring\t 400  square
\nyards  and a building grant of Rs.400\/-, and if he has\tbeen
\nallotted agricultural land exceeding ten standard acres\t but
\nnot exceeding 50 standard acres, a site measuring 400 square
\nyards  and a building grant of Rs. 600\/- and if he has\tbeen
\nallotted agricultural land exceeding ten standard acres\t but
\nnot exceeding 50 standard acres, a site measuring 600 square
\nyards and a building grant of Rs. 600\/-.  It is said that r.
\n57 thus provides
\n\t\t\t    539<\/span>
\nfor compensation where a building left by a displaced person
\nin Pakistan is less than Rs.20,000\/or Rs. 10,000\/- in  value
\nas  the case may be.  Further, it is pointed out that  there
\nis another provision in the Rules, namely r. 97, which deals
\nwith  certain contingencies where the allottee\thas  refused
\nthe  allotment of agricultural land or where such  allotment
\nhas  been cancelled.  It is therefore urged that when r.  65
\nprovides  that no compensation would be given for any  rural
\nbuilding   which   was\tworth  less  than   Rs.20,000\/-\t  or
\nRs.10,000\/-  it referred to the value of each  building\t and
\nthe  case could not be taken out of the ambit of r. 65 if  a
\ndisplaced  person bad left more than one rural building\t and
\nthe value of all such buildings was more than Rs.10,000\/- or
\nRs.20,000\/- taken together.  The reason for this,  according
\nto the appellant, is the provision in r. 57.
\nOn  the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the  respondent
\nthat if r. 65 is not unambiguous on this point and can\thave
\ntwo  meanings, it should be so interpreted as to favour\t the
\ndisplaced  person so that he may get some  compensation\t for
\nthe  rural  buildings left by him in Pakistan, It  is  urged
\nfurther that the words “any rural building” in r. 65  though
\nin singular, can be read in plural also in view of s. 13  of
\nthe General Clauses Act, and that they should be so read  in
\norder to help the displaced person in getting compensation.
\nIn order to decide between the two rival contentions we have
\nto see the background in which r. 65 came to be framed,\t for
\nit is that background which will help in determining one way
\nor the other its proper interpretation.\t Rule 65 came up for
\nconsideration  in  this\t Court\tonce  before,  when  it\t was
\nchallenged  as\tultra  vires on the ground that\t it  made  a
\ndiscrimination between rural building for which compensation
\nwas payable only if they were
\n540<\/span>
\nabove\tcertain\t  value\t and  urban  buildings\t for   which
\ncompensation  was payable, if they were of any\tvalue.\t The
\nconstitutionality  of  r.  65 was upheld by  this  Court  in
\nMakhanlal Malhotra v. The Union of India<\/a> (1).  In that, case
\nthis  Court went into the background which  was\t responsible
\nfor the apparent discrimination between rural buildings\t and
\nurban  buildings.  At an inter-Dominion\t Conference  between
\nthe  Governments  of  India and\t Pakistan  held\t at  Karachi
\nbetween January 10 and 13, 1949, a permanent  inter-Dominion
\nCommission   was  set  up  to  consider\t the   question\t  of
\nadministration,\t sale  and transfer of evacuee\tproperty  in
\nboth  the  Dominions.\tIn persuance of\t this  decision\t the
\nquestion  in respect of shops and houses in rural areas\t was
\nconsidered  by the Commission at New Delhi on March  II\t and
\n13, 1949.  It was recommended at this meeting that buildings
\nin  rural areas of value of Rs. 20,000\/- or more  should  be
\nconsidered  to\tbe substantial buildings and  the  buildings
\nwhich  were of lesser value than that were to be treated  as
\nappendages  of\tagriculture  land and as  such\twere  to  be
\ntreated\t as “agricultural properties”.\tThis shows that\t the
\nbasis  for  purposes  of value was the build.  ing  and\t the
\nownership of the building had nothing to do with this limit.
\nIt  is this agreement which in substance is the basis of  r.
\n65  though the rigor of this agreement has been softened  by
\nmaking\tprovisions of two kinds one for those to  whom\tfour
\nacres or more were allotted and the other for those to\twhom
\nless than four acres were allotted and the limit was kept at
\nRs. 20,000\/- in the case of the former while it was  reduced
\nto  Rs. 10,000\/-in the case of the latter.  But it is  clear
\nfrom the agreement of March 1949 that compensation was to be
\nprovided  for an individual buildings worth  Rs.  20,000\/-or
\nmore and other buildings of less value were to be treated as
\nappendages  to\tthe agricultural land owned by\ta  displaced
\nperson in Pakistan.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  (1961) 2 S.C.R. 120.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    541<\/span><\/p>\n
The  intention behind the agreement obviously was  to  treat
\nonly  buildings\t which\twere  individually  more  than\t Rs.
\n20,000\/-  as  substantial buildings for\t which\tcompensation
\nwould  be  granted while other buildings each of  which\t was
\nless  than  that value would not be  considered\t substantial
\nbuildings  but\twould  be treated as  merely  appendages  to
\nagricultural  properties.   This value of Rs.  20,000\/-\t has
\nbeen reduced to Rs. 10,000\/- in r. 65 for those to whom less
\nthan four acres was allotted, but this change is subject  to
\nthe  same  limitation i. e., where  an\tindividual  building
\nworth  either Rs. 10,000 in one case or Rs. 20,000\/- in\t the
\nother was left in Pakistan compensation would be payable for
\nthat building as such: but where an individual building left
\nin  Pakistan was less than Rs. 20,000\/- or Rs 10,000\/as\t the
\ncase  may  be,\tno  compensation would\tbe  payable  for  it
\nseparately even though more than one such building may\thave
\nbeen left behind by the same displaced person That seems  to
\nbe  the\t scheme which was evolved under the Act\t for  giving
\ncompensation  to  displaced person.  The general  rules\t for
\npayment\t of compensation are to be found in Chapters  IV,  V
\nand VI of the Rules.  Further, r. 44 in Chapter VII provides
\nfor  allotment of acquired evacuee houses in rural areas  in
\nlieu  of compensation Rule 47 then provides for\t payment  of
\ncompensation  under Chap.  VII subject to the provisions  of
\nr.   65.   It  is  clear  therefore  that  the\t scheme\t  of
\ncompensation provided under the Rules is that where a person
\nhas  left  both\t agricultural land and\trural  buildings  in
\nPakistan he was to be allotted agricultural land and for any
\nrural  building which he might have left and each  of  which
\nmight  be less than Rs. 10,000\/-or Rs. 20,000\/- in value  he
\nwas  to\t get what is provided by r. 57.\t But where  any\t one
\nrural building left by him was worth more than Rs.  20,000\/-
\nor   Rs.  10,000\/-  as\tthe  case  may\tbe,  he\t would\t get
\ncompensation  separately.  The argument therefore on  behalf
\nof the respondent which
\n542<\/span>
\nto  have impressed the High Court that no  compensation\t was
\ngiven  to  displaced  persons  for  buildings  less   ‘-)ban
\nRs.20,000\/-  or\t Rs. 10,000\/ , as the case may\tbe,  is\t not
\nborne  out by the Rules.  We have already referred to r.  57
\nin  this  connection and reading that with r.  65  it  seems
\nclear  that  in view of the inter  Dominion  agreement,\t the
\nscheme was that where an individual building was worth\tmore
\nthan   Rs.20,000\/  or  Rs.10,000\/-  as\tthe  case  may\t be,
\ncompensation would be payable separately under Chapters\t IV,
\nV  and VI of the Rules.\t Further, under Chap.  VII  required
\nevacuee\t houses\t in rural areas may be allowed\tin  lieu  of
\ncompensation.\tBut  if each individual building left  by  a
\ndisplaced person was less than Rs.20,000\/- or Rs.10,000\/- as
\nthe  case may be, though he may have left more than  one  he
\nwould  be compensated by allotment of a house or  site\twith
\nbuilding   grant  in  addition\tto  agricultural   land\t  as
\ncontemplated  in  r. 57.  The complaint\t therefore  that  no
\ncompensation has been provided for a displaced person  where
\neach  building left by him was less than  Rs.20,000\/-or\t Rs,
\n10,000\/-  as the case may be, is not correct, though it\t may
\nbe  that  in  the  case of each\t building  worth  less\tthan
\nRs.20,000\/or Rs. 10,000\/- the compensation may not be as  in
\nthe  case of each building worth more than Rs.\t20,000\/-  or
\nRs. 10,000\/- as the case  May be.\n<\/p>\n
The Problem however raised by the migration from that is now
\nWest Pakistan to India. was so vast that it required all the
\nstrength and ingenuity on behalf of the Government of Punjab
\nand the Government of India to meet it and the various taken
\nsteps for that purpose are to be found in Chap.\t 1 of  “Land
\nSettlement  Manual”  by\t Tarlok Singh, which is\t a  book  of
\nundoubted authenticity and value in this respect.  It is  in
\nthat  background  and with the inter-Dominion  agreement  of
\nMarch  1949  in\t view that we have to  approach\t the  inter-
\npretation of r.65. It is clear in that background
\n543<\/span>
\nthat  when r. 65 speaks of any rural building  the  assessed
\nvalue of which is less than Rs. 20,000\/- or Rs. 10,000\/-  it
\nspeaks\tof  each building being of that value  and,does\t not
\ncontemplate  to\t talling  up of the value  of  a  number  of
\nbuildings  which a displaced person might have\tleft  behind
\nand  the total value of which might be Rs. 20,000\/-  or\t Rs.
\n10,000\/as the case may be.  As was pointed by the Full Bench
\nof  the\t Punjab High Court it is not correct to say  that  a
\nperson owning a building in a nonurban area worth less\tthan
\nthe minimum mentioned in the rule receives no  compensation,
\nand the fact is that every displaced person owning houses or
\nbuildings  in a rural area has been compensated under r.  57
\nand the only buildings left out of consideration were  those
\neach  of  which\t was worth Rs.\t20,000\/-  or  Rs.  10,000\/-.
\nReference in this connection may be made to Chap, IX of\t the
\n“land settlement Manual” by Tarlok Singh, where this  matter
\nhas  been  explained  in detail.   Therefore  r.  57  having
\nprovided for compensation for each building worth less\tthan
\nRs.  20,000\/-  or  Rs. 10,000\/- as the case may\t be,  r.  65
\nspecifically   prohibits  separate  compensation  for\tsuch
\nbuildings.  Therefore, when r. 65 speaks of any building the
\nassessed  value of which is Rs. 20,000\/-or Rs.\t10,000\/-  it
\nrefers\tto each building being less than that value, as\t the
\ncase may be.\n<\/p>\n
So far as the respondent is concerned, he would also, if  he
\nso  desired,  have been allotted either a house\t or  a\tsite
\nunder r. 57 if he had decided to settle down in the  village
\nin  which he had been allotted agricultural land.  It  seems
\nhowever that he did not settle in that village and therefore
\ncould not get the advantage of r. 57.  That was however\t his
\nchoice\tand  he\t cannot\t complain that he  is  not  made  it
\nimpossible for an allotment under r. 57 being made to him by
\nnot  setting down in the village in which agricultural\tland
\nwas allotted to him.  We cannot however give a meaning
\n544<\/span>
\nto r. 65 inconsistent with the scheme which has been evolved
\nfor meeting this vast problem simply because the  respondent
\n(or  those  like him) did not chose to settle  down  in\t the
\nvillage in which he had been allotted agricultural land.  If
\nhe  did\t not do so and in consequence he has  suffered\tsome
\nloss,  the loss is of his own choice; and that is no  reason
\nfor  interpreting r. 65 in such a way as to benefit  persons
\n(like the respondent) who by their own choice did not  avail
\nof  the\t benefit  which they would have\t got  under  r.\t 57.
\nReading\t r.  65\t in the background in which it\tcame  to  be
\nprescribed there Can be no doubt that when it speaks of\t any
\nrural building the assessed value of which is Rs.  10,000\/or
\nRs.  20,000\/-  as  the\tcase  may  be,\tit  speaks  of\teach
\nindividual building worth that much; it does not provide for
\ntotaling up the value where a displaced person may have left
\nmore   than   one  building  in\t West  Pakistan.    In\t the
\ncircumstances  s.  13 of the General Clauses Act  would\t not
\napply.\t That  section\tspecifically  lays  down  that\t the
\nsingular  would include the plural unless there is  anything
\nrepugnant  in  the subject or context.\tWhat  we  have\tsaid
\nabove  would  clearly show that considering the\t subject  in
\nthis  case and the context in which the word “building”\t has
\nbeen  used,  it is the building that has to  be\t taken\tinto
\naccount in determining the limits in r, 65 and not the\towne
\nreship of the building.\t Where the building itself is  worth
\nRs.  20,000\/- or Rs. 10,000\/- or more, as the case  may\t be,
\nthe  case would be, taken out of r. 65. But there is in\t our
\nopinion\t no  warrant in the context for\t building  that\t the
\nownership has to be taken into account and if an owner has a
\nnumber\tof buildings, each less than the  prescribed  limit,
\nthe  value  of\tsuch  buildings\t can  be  totalled  up\t and
\ncompensation  claimed if the total is above  the  prescribed
\nlimit.\t We are therefore of opinion that the view taken  by
\nthe High Court is incorrect and
\n\t\t\t    545<\/span>
\nthis appeal must be allowed.  We therefore allow the  appeal
\nand  set aside the order of the High Court and\tdismiss\t the
\nwrit  petition.\t  The  High Court allowed no  costs  to\t the
\nrespondent.  We think in the- circumstances that the parties
\nshould bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Regional Settlement … vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 181, 1963 SCR (2) 534 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: THE REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER Vs. RESPONDENT: SUNDERDAS BHASIN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/04\/1962 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-172792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Regional Settlement ... vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Regional Settlement ... vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-18T08:56:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Regional Settlement … vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-18T08:56:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962\"},\"wordCount\":3278,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962\",\"name\":\"The Regional Settlement ... vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-18T08:56:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Regional Settlement … vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Regional Settlement ... vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Regional Settlement ... vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-18T08:56:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Regional Settlement … vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962","datePublished":"1962-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-18T08:56:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962"},"wordCount":3278,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962","name":"The Regional Settlement ... vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-18T08:56:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-regional-settlement-vs-sunderdas-bhasin-on-27-april-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Regional Settlement … vs Sunderdas Bhasin on 27 April, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=172792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172792\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}