# JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS v. KHILLU RAM AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 78
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-10-06
- **Case number:** Civil Writ No. 587 of 1964
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, A. C. Gupta, S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/joint-secretary-to-the-government-of-india-ors-v-khillu-ram-and-anr-6554
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

. Displaced persons (Compensation .and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, r. 30Efject of its deletion 011 pending proceedings-Retrospective effect.
Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules,
1955, .rres:ribes that where property is in the occupation of more persons than
one, it shall be offered to the person whose gross compemation is the highest.
A pa·rticu.lar property was allotted under this rule to the first respondent. A
revision petition by the rival claimant, was dismissed in September, 1963. But
on August 13, 1963, the rule had been abrogated. The effect of the deletion
was that a property in the occupation of more than one, person was to be put to
sale. In an applicatiQn under s. 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensatioru and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, by the rival claimant, the appellant held that the
case should be governed by the rules as amended, that is, excluding r. 30, and
set a·>ide the order allotting the premises to the first respondent.
A writ petition
filed by the first respondent in the High Court was allowed .
In apper.1 to this Court, the appellant contended that the rule was one of
pro:edure and its deletion affected only the mode of proceeding by which the
rival claim was to be decided.
Dismissing the appeal, •
HELD : The rights of the two rival claimants must be governed by r. 30
which wa·> in force when the dispute. arose and was decided by the authorities
under the Act. [80 G-H].
(a) Rule 30 deals, not with form of procedure, but with the substantive
right conforred by the Act on displaced persons. The Act provides for the
payment of compenrntion and rehabilitation grants to displa:ed persons and
matters cc.nnected therewith.
Rule 30 is in Chapter V of the Rules which
deals with payment of compensation by transfer of acquired evacuee properties.
Assuming that the rule is only a mode or manner of payment of compensation,
the form and manner in which compensation is payable is also a part of the
right to get compemation. The rule is not am instrument of machinery for
asserting a right conferred by the A:t; it does not regulate the procedure
for settlenlent of disputes concerning that right. Therefore, the deletion of
the rule in 1963 cannot affect pending actions. [80 D~GJ.
(b) Neither by express words nor by implication the amendment of the rules
' '-
in 1963 deleting r. 30 has been 111ade retrospective in opemtion. [81 A-BJ.
"'
Pt, Dev Raj v. Union of India & Ors.; A.I.R. 1974 Pun. 65, approved.
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 862 of l 968.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
6th December, 1964 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil
Writ No. 587 of 1964.
G. L. Sanghi and Girish Chandra for the Appellants.
S. N. Anand for the Respondents.
it. '
r'
,.
JOINT SECRETARY v. KHILLU RAM (Gupta, J.)
79

## Text

A
B
c
. D
E
F
G
H
78
JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
KHILLU RAM AND ANR.
October 6, 1975
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au, JJ.]
. Displaced persons (Compensation .and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, r. 30Efject of its deletion 011 pending proceedings-Retrospective effect.
Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules,
1955, .rres:ribes that where property is in the occupation of more persons than
one, it shall be offered to the person whose gross compemation is the highest.
A pa·rticu.lar property was allotted under this rule to the first respondent. A
revision petition by the rival claimant, was dismissed in September, 1963. But
on August 13, 1963, the rule had been abrogated. The effect of the deletion
was that a property in the occupation of more than one, person was to be put to
sale. In an applicatiQn under s. 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensatioru and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, by the rival claimant, the appellant held that the
case should be governed by the rules as amended, that is, excluding r. 30, and
set a·>ide the order allotting the premises to the first respondent.
A writ petition
filed by the first respondent in the High Court was allowed .
In apper.1 to this Court, the appellant contended that the rule was one of
pro:edure and its deletion affected only the mode of proceeding by which the
rival claim was to be decided.
Dismissing the appeal, •
HELD : The rights of the two rival claimants must be governed by r. 30
which wa·> in force when the dispute. arose and was decided by the authorities
under the Act. [80 G-H].
(a) Rule 30 deals, not with form of procedure, but with the substantive
right conforred by the Act on displaced persons. The Act provides for the
payment of compenrntion and rehabilitation grants to displa:ed persons and
matters cc.nnected therewith.
Rule 30 is in Chapter V of the Rules which
deals with payment of compensation by transfer of acquired evacuee properties.
Assuming that the rule is only a mode or manner of payment of compensation,
the form and manner in which compensation is payable is also a part of the
right to get compemation. The rule is not am instrument of machinery for
asserting a right conferred by the A:t; it does not regulate the procedure
for settlenlent of disputes concerning that right. Therefore, the deletion of
the rule in 1963 cannot affect pending actions. [80 D~GJ.
(b) Neither by express words nor by implication the amendment of the rules
' '-
in 1963 deleting r. 30 has been 111ade retrospective in opemtion. [81 A-BJ.
"'
Pt, Dev Raj v. Union of India & Ors.; A.I.R. 1974 Pun. 65, approved.
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 862 of l 968.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
6th December, 1964 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil
Writ No. 587 of 1964.
G. L. Sanghi and Girish Chandra for the Appellants.
S. N. Anand for the Respondents.
it. '
r'
,.
JOINT SECRETARY v. KHILLU RAM (Gupta, J.)
79
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GUPTA, J.
This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceeding under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitati~n)
Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The only quest10n
for 'determination in the appeal is whether the deletion of rule 30
of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules,
1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) with effect from August
13, 1963 made any difference to the rights of the parties concerned
in this case.
The question arises on the following facts.
Shop No. 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 Ct)stodian 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
<Jf their share in the shop to him.
B1y 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 Office(, 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 trrms : ·
A
B
c
D
"Payment of compensation where an acquired evacuee
property which is an allotab'le property is in occupation of
more than one person.-If more persons than one holding
E
"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
highest and the other persons may be allotted such other
acquired evacuee property which is allotable
as. may be
available : "
This rule 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
daimant, 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 been abrogated with
effect from August-13, 1963. Teju Mal then moved the Central Government under sec. 33 of the Act.
Teju Mal's
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 tha.n 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
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
I
E
F
G
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 2 S.C.R.
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.
The correctness of this
order is challenged in the appeal before us which has been preferred
by the Union of India and several other authorities concerned with
the administration of the Displaced Persons
(Compensation
and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
The only submission made by Mr. Sanghi appearing for the appellants is that rule 30 was a rule of procedure and its deletion in 1963
affected only the mode of proceeding by which the rival claims of
Khillu Ram and Teju Mal was to be decided. It was argued that
amendment of the Rules in 1963 deleting rule 30 being procedural in
character would affect the proceeding between the two respondents
then pending, and their rights, it was submitted, should therefore be
decided on the footing as if rule 30 had never been in force. 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 thereunder. Rule 30 is in Chapter V of
the Rules which deals with payment of compensation by transfer of
acqmrecl Erncue~ Properties. Though
the shop
in question is a
government built property and not an acquired evacuee property, rule
43 in Chapter V1 of the Rules which provides for payment of compensation by transfer of government built property says that the "provisions 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 Pun.-
jab and Haryana High Court in Pt. Dev Raj v. Union of India &
Ors. (1) 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
1) A. I. R. 1974 Pun. 65,
' "
•
.~
r
,
/
JOINT SECRETARY v. KHILLU RAM (Gupta, J.)
81
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
rule ...... cannot be adversely affected or taken away unless it is
expressly stated in the amending provisjon, or the language of the Act
unniistakably ·and unequivocabliy inqicates an intention to that effect".
This, 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.
For these reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed but without
any order as to costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
A
•