# H. K. CHOUDHURY, REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER v. SHRI ISSARDAS KUNDANMAL MOTIANI AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1965] 3 S.C.R. 78
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-02-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 89-93 H of 1964
- **Bench:** P.B. Gajendragadkar, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah, S.M. S!Kri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/h-k-choudhury-regional-settlement-commissioner-v-shri-issardas-kundanmal-3460
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Displaced Persons (Compensation and RehabiMation)
Rules,
1955, r.l!f-If applies to agricultural woperty.
B
c
D
The respondent who had a "verified claim" applied for compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation
and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. He alleged that he was a co-sharer along with his
brothers in agricultural property in West Pakistan and claimed his
share of the compensation. The Assistant Settlement
Officer held
that the alleged co-sharers were members of a joint Hindu, family
and that the agricultural property was joint property. He then calculated the compensation on· the joint property as per rr. 51 and 56
of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules
1955. The respondent thereupon filed a petition in the High Court
under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution contending that on the
finding that the respondent and his brothers constituted
a
joint
family, the unit for assessment of compensation should first be determined according to f. :!.~, which makes special provision for payment of coi;;npensation to joint families, before compensat~on was
calculated. The High Court allowed the petition.
E
In the appeal to this Court it was contended that r. 19 was inapplicable as that rule does not apply to agricultural land.
HELD: The High Court was iight in holding that the rule applied to the claim of the respondent in respect of the agricultural
land.
Chapter IV of the Rules in which r.19 occurs contains some
F
rules which apply to applications for compensation in respect of
agricultural lands also. Therefore it cannot be said that the Chapter
does not deal with agricultural lands at all. Each rule must be considered to see whether it has application to a claim for compensation in respect of agricultural land. So considered, there is no principle of construction by which the scope af'the general words in r. 19
could be limited, so as not to apply to agricultural land. Chapter
G
VIII of the Rules provides for compensation in respect of verified
claims for agricultural lands in rural areas and only deals with how
a unit that has been determined is to be compensated. There
is
nothing in that Chapter which modifies or overrides r.19 which enables the authorities to determine the unit for assessment of compensation in the case of joint families. [83 D-E; 85 A-Fl
C1v1L APPELLATE JuRJSDICTJON; Civil Appeals Nos. 89-93
H
of 1964.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated
August 30, 1961 and June 13, 1961 in Special Civil Application
Nos. 440, 441, 509, 510 and 7 of 1961.
K. S. Chawla and R. S. Saclzthey, for the appellant (in C. As.
No,. 89/91-'19641
CliuUDHGRY v. ISSARDAS (Sikri, J.)
79
A
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, K. S. Chawla and R. N.
Sachthey, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 93 I 64).
N. N. Keshwani, for the respondents in all the appeals.

## Text

78
H. K. CHOUDHURY, REGIONAL SETTLEMENT
COMMISSIONER
v.
SHRI ISSARDAS KUNDANMAL MOTIANI AND OTHERS
February 15, 1965
[P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND
S.M. S!KRI, JJ.]
Displaced Persons (Compensation and RehabiMation)
Rules,
1955, r.l!f-If applies to agricultural woperty.
B
c
D
The respondent who had a "verified claim" applied for compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation
and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. He alleged that he was a co-sharer along with his
brothers in agricultural property in West Pakistan and claimed his
share of the compensation. The Assistant Settlement
Officer held
that the alleged co-sharers were members of a joint Hindu, family
and that the agricultural property was joint property. He then calculated the compensation on· the joint property as per rr. 51 and 56
of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules
1955. The respondent thereupon filed a petition in the High Court
under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution contending that on the
finding that the respondent and his brothers constituted
a
joint
family, the unit for assessment of compensation should first be determined according to f. :!.~, which makes special provision for payment of coi;;npensation to joint families, before compensat~on was
calculated. The High Court allowed the petition.
E
In the appeal to this Court it was contended that r. 19 was inapplicable as that rule does not apply to agricultural land.
HELD: The High Court was iight in holding that the rule applied to the claim of the respondent in respect of the agricultural
land.
Chapter IV of the Rules in which r.19 occurs contains some
F
rules which apply to applications for compensation in respect of
agricultural lands also. Therefore it cannot be said that the Chapter
does not deal with agricultural lands at all. Each rule must be considered to see whether it has application to a claim for compensation in respect of agricultural land. So considered, there is no principle of construction by which the scope af'the general words in r. 19
could be limited, so as not to apply to agricultural land. Chapter
G
VIII of the Rules provides for compensation in respect of verified
claims for agricultural lands in rural areas and only deals with how
a unit that has been determined is to be compensated. There
is
nothing in that Chapter which modifies or overrides r.19 which enables the authorities to determine the unit for assessment of compensation in the case of joint families. [83 D-E; 85 A-Fl
C1v1L APPELLATE JuRJSDICTJON; Civil Appeals Nos. 89-93
H
of 1964.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated
August 30, 1961 and June 13, 1961 in Special Civil Application
Nos. 440, 441, 509, 510 and 7 of 1961.
K. S. Chawla and R. S. Saclzthey, for the appellant (in C. As.
No,. 89/91-'19641
CliuUDHGRY v. ISSARDAS (Sikri, J.)
79
A
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, K. S. Chawla and R. N.
Sachthey, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 93 I 64).
N. N. Keshwani, for the respondents in all the appeals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
Sikri, J. These five appeals by special leave raise a common
c
qpestion of interpretation of r. 19 of the Displaced Persons (Com·
pensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as
the Rules). It is common ground that nothing turns on any dissimi·
larity in the facts of each appeal. It will accordingly suffice if facts
in Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1964 3re set out.
The respondent, Lachman Hotchand Kriplani, is a displaced
person from West Pakistan. He has three brothers. They owned
731 acres of agricultural land in District Nawabshah, Taluka
Nawab Shah, Sind-now in Pakistan. The respondent submitted a
claim under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 (XLIV of
D 1950)-hereinafter referred to as the Claims Act. The word 'claim'
was defined to mean "assertion of a right to the ownership of, or
to any interest in (i) any immovable property in West Pakistan
which is situated within an urban area, or (ii) such class of property
in any part of West Pakistan, other than an urban area as may be
notified by the Central Government in this behalf in the official
E gazette". It is common ground that agricultural land in Sind was
so notified. The . respondent's claim was that he owned 114 share
of 731 acres and 14 ghuntas standing in the name of Fatehchand.
The Claim Officer, by order dated October 7, 1952, accepted the
claim and assessed his claim as 94-3 standard acres.
F
On July 2, 1955, the respondent applied for compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensa.tion and Rehabilitation) Act
(XLIV of 1954)-hereinafter referred to as
the Compensation
Act. In. the application he stated that he was not a member of a
Joint Hindu Family in Pakjstan, but his claim was as a co-sharer
G alongwith three others, who had filed separate claims. The Assis·
tant Settlement Commissioner was, however, not satisfied with
this assertion and after holding an enquiry, by order dated March
3, 1960, he held that the four alleged co-sharers were members of
a Joint Hindu Family, and the whole agricultural land claim was
to be treated as joint property. On August 29, 1960, a statement
of account was issued to the tesrvmdent. This statement showed
H
that his claim was assessed as Rs. !D,701/- gross compensation
This figure was arrived at, as stated in the affidavit of the Assis
tant Settlement Commissioner, thus:
"The claim was assessed for 376 standard acres and
12 units out of which the petitioner had I/ 4th share.
The compensation on 376 Standard Acres and 12 Unit<
work<.: n11t tn 1 ()Q Cl+~ .... "' -
~
·
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1965] 3 S.C.R.
scale indicated in Rule 51. This converted in terms of
A
money as per Rule 56 comes to Rs.. 42,806 /- The petitioner's I I 4th share would be Rs. 10,701 /-".
The respondent then on October 28, 1960, ser.ved a notice
on the Regional Settlement Commissioner calling upon him to
rectify the statement of account, failing which he will be conB
strained to move the High Court under arts. 226 and 227 of the
Constitution. In this notice he claimed that r. 20 applied to his
case; in the alternative he asserted that at least r. 19 should be applied to him. In reply, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner informed him that the calculation had been done correctly. Thereupon, he filed a petition under arts. 226 and 227, in the Bombay
0
High Court. The High Court allowed the petition and set aslde
the statement of account furnished to the petitioner on August
29, 1960, and directed that the respondent shall give the benefit
of r. 19 and determine the amount of compensation payable to
him in accordance with the provisions of rr. 19, 51 and 56 and
other rules of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and RehabiD
litation) Rules, 1955.
The appellant having obtained special leave, the appeals are
now before us. We may mention at the outset that in the High
Court the respondent's counsel did not challenge the finding of the
Assistant Settlement Commissioner that the respondent and his
brothers were members of a joint family. The High Court came to E
the conclusion tha~ t. 19 applied to agricultural land. It found
nothing in the scheme of the Rules, or in the language of r. 19, to
support the claim of the Department that r. 19 applied only to nonagricultural land.
The learned Attorney-General, on behalf of the appellant, P
challenges the conclusion of the High Court. He has taken us
through various sections of the Compensation Act of 1954 and various rules to substantiate his contention. Let us then look at the
Compensation Act and the Rules. The Compensation Act was enacted to provide for payment of compensation and rehabilitation
grant to displaced persons and for matters connected therewith.
'Verified claim" is defined to mean, inter alia, a claim registered
G
under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act (XLIV of 1950). It is
not disputed that the claim of the respondent verified by order
dated October 7, 1952, is a verified ciaim.
Section 4 provides for an application for the payment of compensation in the prescribed form to be made by a displaced person R
having a verified claim within a certain period. Section 5 provides
that bn receipt of an application under s. 4, the Settlement Officer
shall determine the amount of public dues, if any, recoverabJe'
from the applicant 11nd shall forward ·the applieation arid the record to the Settlement Commissioner. It will be noticed that a verified claim registered under the Claim Act, 1950, includes claims to
urban as well as certain agricultural land. Therefore, both ss. 4 l\lld
~HOUDHURY V. ISSARDAS (8'ikri, J.)
81
A 5 apply to such agricultUfal land as has been made the subjectmatter of claim and verification under the Claims Act of 1950.
Section 6 was referred to by the learned Attorney-General but we
have not been able to appreciate how it advances his case. Section
6 gives relief to certain banking companies in this way. If a banking company held a mortgage of an immovable property belonging
B to a displaced person in West Pakistan, and that
mortgage was
subsisting at the date when the claim of the banking company was
registered under the Claim Act, 1950, and the displaced person is
entitled to receive compensation in respect of any such property,
the banking company was entitled to various reliefs, the appropriate relief depending on whether the compensation to the disc placed person is payable (1) in cash or (2) in the form of transfer
of any property, or (3) in any other form. In this section immovable property would include agricultural land and it cannot be denied that the respondent is entitled to compensation at least in one
of the three forms mentioned in sub. s. (2).
·n
Section 7(1) directs the Settlement Commissioner on receipt
of the application under s. 5 to ascertain the amount of compensation having due regard to the nature of the verified claim and other
circumstances of the case. Section 7 (2) provides for the deduction
of certain dues and the Settlement Commissioner then makes an
order under s. 7(3) ascertaining the net amount of compensation.
E Section 8 provides the form and manner of payment of compensation of the net compensation determined under s. 7(3) as being
payable to a displaced person. Subject to any rules that may be
made, the net compensation is payable in cash, in government
bonds, or by E~le to the displaced person of any property from the
compensation pool and setting off the purchase money against the
F
compensation payable to him, etc. Section 8(2) enables rules to be
made by the Central Government on ·various matters, inter alia,
the SC!lles according to which. the form and the manner in which
and the instalments by which compensation may be paid to different classes of displaced persons. Section 40 enables rules to be
made to carry out by the purposes of the Compensation Act. It
G is not necessary to refer to other sections of the Compensation
Act.
Before ;We deal with the 1955 Rules, it is apparent that ss. 4,
5, 6, 7 and/8 do not in any manner distinguish between urban land
and agricuJtural land as long as the agricultural land is the subH ject-matter of a verified claim. If a person holding a verified claim
in respect of agricultural land owes .Pubfic dues-and "public dues"
is defined very widely in s. 2(d) to include all kind of loans not only
from the Central Government but from a State Government alsothis has to be deducted under s. 7(3). It is suggested that the expression "net amount of compensation" ii! s. 7(3) means only cash
compensation but We are unable to limit the expression thus in
view of the scheme of ss. 4 to 8.
82
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
(1965] 3 S.C.R.
The Central Government in exercise of the power conferred A
by s. 40 of the Compensation Act made the Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, .1955. Chapter I contains various definitions; Chapter II deals with procedure for submission of compensation application and determination of pqblic
dues. Rule 3 enables a displaced person having a verified claim to
make an application for compensation. Rule 4 deals with the form
B
of application and Appendix I is the form prescribed, and Appendix
II is the questionnaire which has to be answered. One question is
important for our purpose. Under the heading "II. Particulars of
claims under Displaced Persons Claims Act, 1950" is
mentibned:
"(a) agricultural land, index no; Village/Tehsil/District; value assessed in standard acres; cosharers in each property with respective
C
shares;. if any property is mortgaged state mortgage money and
name of the mortgagees". The rest of the rules, upto r. 9, in this
Chapter deal with the scrutiny of the application and the determination of public dues. It is only necessary to notice r. 6(2) which
requires a Settlement Officer to send a duplicate copy of the application to the Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner for
D
verification of the assessed value of the claim in respect of which
the application has been made. Under r. 10, the Settlement Officer is required to pass an order and send a copy of the order and
the original application along with the records of the case to the
Regional Settlement Commissioner. It will be seen that Chapter
II does not distinguish between verified claims relating to urban E
property and rural property.
Then we come to Chapter III which contains r. 11. Under
this rule the Settlement Commissioner deals with the duplicate
copy sent to him under r. 6(2). He verifies the assessed value of the
claim, as stated in the application, with the final order in respect F
thereof, in the claims record and returns the duplicate copy to the
Regional Settlement Commissioner with such remarks as may be
relevant for the determination of the amount bf compensation.
Chapter IV deals with determination of compensation. It will be
remembered that s. 5 of the Compensation Act requires the Settlement Officer to determine the amount of public dues and forward
G
the application and the record of the case tb the Settlement Commissioner, and r. 1], which we have just noticed, requires the Settlement Commissioner (Headquarters) to send the duplicate copy
to the Regional Settlement Commissioner. Rule 12 directs the
Regional Settlement Commissioner to consolidate all these papers.
Rule 12 obviously applies to application in respect of verified H
claims to agricultural land. As we have already said, s. 5 and r. 11
applied to such verified claims. Rule 13 deals with determination
of certain dues to banking companies under s. 6 and any unsecured
debt payable by an applicant in respect of which a communicatibn
has been received from any Tribunal under s. 52 of the Displaced
Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, 1951 (LXX of 1951). Rule 14
directs that the public dues and the amounts referred to in Rule 13
I
CHOUDHURY V, ISSARDAS (Sikri, J.)
83
A shall be deducted from the amount of compensation in a certain
order of priority. Rule 15 reads as follows:
B
c
"Determination of net compensation; After deducting
the amount referred to in rule 14, the Regional Settlement
Commissioner or an Assistant Settlement Commissioner
or a Settlement Officer, or an Assistant Settlement Officer, having jurisdiction and duly authorised by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, shall pass an order determining the net amount of compensation payable to
the applicant in respect of his verified claim and shall
prepare a summary in the form specified in Appendix
VII (Abstract of particulars).
It is significant that Appendix VII has a column for agricultural land and a column for remarks regarding application of r.
19.
Pausing here, it is difficult to hold that rr. 12, 13 and 14 do
not apply to applications for compensation in respect of agriculD tural lands which are the subject-matter of a verified claim. Therefore, we must reject the contention that Chapter IV, in which r.
19 occurs, does not deal with agricultural lands at all. It may be
conceded that r. 16 does not apply to agricultural lands. The
scale of compensation in respect of agricultural lands which are
E
the subject-matter of a verified claim is expressly dealt with elsewhere. Rule 51 which provides that the scale of allotment of land
as compensation in respect of a verified claim for agricultural
land shall be the same as in
quasi-permanent land allotment
scheme in the State of Punjab and Patiala, and the East Punjab
States Union, as set out in Appendix XIV. The explanation furF ther provides that if any public dues are recoverable the allotable
area shall be reduced correspondingly. Rule 49 read with r. 56
enables the compensation due on the verified claim for agricultural land to be converted into cash if a person wishes to have his
claim satisfied against property other than agricultural land. Rule
18 expressly excludes agricultural land from its purview.
What
G emerges from a consideration of these rules in Chapter IV is that
we must consider each rule and see whether it has application to
a claim for compensation in respect of agricultural land.
H
Rule 19 reads thus:
"Special Provision for payment of compensation to
Joint families-Where a claim relates to .properties left
by the members of an undivided Hindu family in West
Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as
the joint family)
compensation shall be computed in the manner hereinafter provided in this rule.
(2) where on the 26th Sept. 1955 (hereinafter referred
to as the relevant date) the joint family consisted of:-
(a) two or three members entitled to claim partition,
84
.SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
(1965] 3 S.C.R.
the compensation payable to such family shall be computed by dividing the verified _claim into two equal shares
and cafoulating the compensation separately on each such
share,
(b) four or more members entitled to claim partition,
the compensation payable to such family shall be computed by dividing the verified claim into three equal shares
and calculating the compensation separately on each such
share.
(3) For the purpose of calculating the number of the
member of a joint family under sub-rule (2), a person
who on the relevant date: -
(a) was less than 18 years of age,
(b) was a lenial descendant in the main line of another
living member of joint Hindu family entitled to claim partition shall be excluded:
Provided that where a member of a joint family has
died during the period commencing on the 14th August
.1947 and ending on the relevant date leaving behind on
the· relevant date all or any of the following heirs
namely:-
(a) a widow or widows,
(b) a son or sons (whatever the age of such son or sons)
but no lenial ascendant in the main line, then all such
heirs shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in this
rule, be reckon&! as one member of 'the joint Hindu family.
'
Explanation-For the purpose of this rule, the question
whether a family is joint or separate shall be determined
with reference to the status of the family on the 14th day
of August, 1947 and every member of a joint family shall
be deemed to be joint notwithstanding the fact that he
had separated from the family after the date".
The heading "Special Provision for payment of compensation to joint families" is general. So is sub-rule (1). The word 'pro.
perties' is general and would include agricultural land. That this is
the meaning is also borne out if we consider the word "claim". The
word "claim" must have reference to the claim in the application
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
to be made under s. 4 read with rr. 3 and 4, and as we have alB
ready noticed, the application would include a claim in respect of
agricultural land if it is the subject-matter of a verified claim.
The learned Attorney-General has not been able to. point to
any principle of construction which would enable us to limit the
scope of the general words in r. 19(1). His main argument that no
'rule in Chapter IV applies to claims in respect of agricultural land
we have already rejected.
•
C!!Ol"f>HURY t'. ISSARDAS (8ikri, J.)
85
A
The learned Atlorney-General then urges that the scheme ·of
the Rules is to provide in separate chapters for compensation in
respect of various classes of properties, and h~ says that Chapter
VIII provides for compensation in respect of verified claim for
agricultural land situated in rural area and the rules contained
in the chapter are the only rules _that govern the grant of comB pensation. But none of the rules in this chapter deals with what
is to happen if the agricultural land was held by a joint family in
West Pakistan or if the agricultural land was held by co-owners
in West Pakistan. Even if a Joint Hindu Family is treated as a
unit for s:Jme purposes in some laws, co-owners are very rarely
treated as a unit and it would require express language to treat
C co-owners as a unit and award compensation to them as a unit.
However,· r. 20 recognises ihe general rule and provides that where
a claim relates to property left in West Pakistan, which is owned
by more than one claimant as co-owners, the unit for the assessment of compensation shall be the share of each co-owner and the
compensation shall be payable in respect of each such share as if
D a claim in respect thereof has been filed and verified separately.
The learned Attorney-General, when asked, said that even r. 20
would not apply to a claim in respect of agricultural land, but we
are unable to accede to this contention. It would be the height of
inequity to hold this. In other words, rr. 19 and 20 enable the authprities to determine the unit for assessment of compensation. This
E subject is not dealt with in Chapter VIII, which deals with how
the unit, be it an individual, a member of Joint Hindu Family or
a co-owner, is to be compensated. There is nothing in Chapter
VIII which modifies or overrides rr. 19 and 20.
Accordingly, in agreement with the High Court. we hold
r that r. 19 will apply to the claim of the respondent in respect of
agricultural land left by him as a member of the Joint Hindu
Family.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
As stated in the beginning, it is common ground that if this:
G appeal fails the other appeals must also fail. They are according-.
ly dismissed with costs. There will be one hearing fee in them.
Appeals dismissed.