# CMnna Gow.ta v. S1.i. .J Jlysor• - **Citation:** [1963] 2 S.C.R. 534 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1963 - **Case number:** Civil Writ Case No. 39 of 1957 - **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendra.Gad.Kar, K. N. WA.Nonoo, N. RA.JAGOPALA. AYYA.NGA.R a.nd T. L. VENKA.TA.RA.MA. AIY AR - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/cmnna-gow-ta-v-s1-i-j-jlysor-2515 - **Pages:** 12 ## Headnote Rthahilitation of DUp/actd per.!OM-Compenaation for rural buildill{l1-Not payabl< for rural building valtud at IU4 than&. 10,000-More than cme rural building each valutd"" lw than Ra. 10,000-Wht.thd at this meeting that buildings in rural areas of value of Rs. 20,000/· or more shouid be considered to be substantial buildings and the buildings whioh were of leBBer value than that were to be treated as appendages of agriculture land and aR such were to be treated as "agricultural properties". Thie shows that the basis for J->Urposes of value was the building 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 rigour of this agreement bas been softened by making provisions of two kinds one for those to whom four acres or more were allotted and the otht>r 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. I 0 ,000 /·in the oaee of the latter. But it is clear from the agree• ment of March 1949 that compensation was to be provided for an individual buildings worth Ra. 20,000/-or more and other buildings of lees value were to be treated as appendages to the agricultural land owned by a displaced person in Pakietall {II (1951) 2 s.c.R dll. ' • . . • 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 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/- bas been reduced to Rs. 10,000/- iri 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 co'mpensation would be payable for that building as such: but where an individual building left in Pakistan was Jess 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 Chaptors 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 compensa- , tion 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 bas 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 e_ach of which might be less thari 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 . tJaerefore o~ b~-lf ef the respand~t w!).icli ~ 'l'Ae Regi ... I S1ttkment C1111mi11lon1r •• Bumlerdtu Bhllllo 11111 TIU Rt,i...J S."'-"• ~sWn,, •• Sua