# z96o MAKHAN LAL MALHOTRA AND OTHERS October a7 v. THE UNION OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [1961] 2 S.C.R. 120
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, J. L. Kapur, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. SuBBA RAO, K. N. Wanchoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/z96o-makhan-lal-malhotra-and-others-october-a7-v-the-union-of-india-2201
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Evacuee Property-Rural building-Claim for compensationClassification -
Validity of rules-Displaced Persons (Claims)
Supplementary Act, z954 (z2 of z954), r. 5-Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, z954 (44 of z954), r. 65Constitution of India, Arts: z4, 3z(5)(b)(iii).
The petitioners who were displaced persons from West
Pakistan put forward certain claims in regard to village houses
which they had left there, but which were rejected by the
....
' !-
Rehabilitation authorities. The claims were for amounts above
"
Rs. 20,000 in the case of some of the petitioners and above
Rs. 10,000 in the case of the others. By r. 5 framed under the
Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954, claims
could be verified provided, inter alia, that where a claimant had
•
been allotted any agricultural land in India and such land so
allotted exceeded four acres, the value of the building in respect
of which the claim was made shall not be less than Rs. 20,000
and· where it did not exceed four acres the claim made was not
less than Rs. 10,000. Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, provided that any person to whom more than four acres of agricultural land had 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 was less than Rs. 20,000, and any person allotted four acres or less was not entitled to receive compensation where the value was less than ·Rs. 10,000. The petitioners challenged the validity of the aforesaid rules as being
discriminatory and there!>y contravening Art. 14 of the .Constitution of India on the grounds that the object of the various
Acts and the rules made thereunder was to rehabilitate displaced persons but by the rules, .classifications had been made
with reference to houses in rural areas which were discriminatory as neither the classes were based on intelligible differentia
nor was there a rational nexus between that differentia and the
object sought to be achieved. It was found that the impugned
rules were made in pursuance of an Inter-Dominion Agreement
between the two Governments with regard to evaluation of
evacuee property, which had received recognition in Art. 31(5)
(b)(iii) of the Constitution.
Held, that the impugned rules afforded a reasonable justification for the classification and did not contravene Art. 14 of
the Constitution.
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
121
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Petition No. 44 of 1958.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
N aunit Lal and Gopal Singh, for the petitioners.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India,
N. S. Bindra, K. R. Choudhri and R.H. Dhebar, for
the respondent.
1960. October 27. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
KAPUR J .-The petitioners have moved this Court
under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of
mandamus against the respondent to verify the claims
put forward by the petitioners and to grant compensation in respect thereof; but there is little merit to
commend the acceptance of the petition.
The petitioners are displaced persons from West
Punjab which is now known as West Pakistan and
have taken up their residences in different parts of
India. They put forward certain claims in regard to
village houses which they had left in West Pakistan
and which were situate in different villages. The petitioners have in their petition set out their respective
claims which were rejected by the Rehabilitation
authorities. It is unnecessary to give details of the
properties in the various villages in regard to which
claims were made. It is sufficient to say that the
claims were put forward and they were for amounts
above Rs. 20,000 in the case of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2
and above Rs. 10,000 in the case of petitioners Nos. 3
to 6.
The petitioners challenge the vires of two rulesRule 5 under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act,

## Text

120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
z96o
MAKHAN LAL MALHOTRA AND OTHERS
October a7.
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR,
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
Evacuee Property-Rural building-Claim for compensationClassification -
Validity of rules-Displaced Persons (Claims)
Supplementary Act, z954 (z2 of z954), r. 5-Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, z954 (44 of z954), r. 65Constitution of India, Arts: z4, 3z(5)(b)(iii).
The petitioners who were displaced persons from West
Pakistan put forward certain claims in regard to village houses
which they had left there, but which were rejected by the
....
' !-
Rehabilitation authorities. The claims were for amounts above
"
Rs. 20,000 in the case of some of the petitioners and above
Rs. 10,000 in the case of the others. By r. 5 framed under the
Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954, claims
could be verified provided, inter alia, that where a claimant had
•
been allotted any agricultural land in India and such land so
allotted exceeded four acres, the value of the building in respect
of which the claim was made shall not be less than Rs. 20,000
and· where it did not exceed four acres the claim made was not
less than Rs. 10,000. Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, provided that any person to whom more than four acres of agricultural land had 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 was less than Rs. 20,000, and any person allotted four acres or less was not entitled to receive compensation where the value was less than ·Rs. 10,000. The petitioners challenged the validity of the aforesaid rules as being
discriminatory and there!>y contravening Art. 14 of the .Constitution of India on the grounds that the object of the various
Acts and the rules made thereunder was to rehabilitate displaced persons but by the rules, .classifications had been made
with reference to houses in rural areas which were discriminatory as neither the classes were based on intelligible differentia
nor was there a rational nexus between that differentia and the
object sought to be achieved. It was found that the impugned
rules were made in pursuance of an Inter-Dominion Agreement
between the two Governments with regard to evaluation of
evacuee property, which had received recognition in Art. 31(5)
(b)(iii) of the Constitution.
Held, that the impugned rules afforded a reasonable justification for the classification and did not contravene Art. 14 of
the Constitution.
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
121
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Petition No. 44 of 1958.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
N aunit Lal and Gopal Singh, for the petitioners.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India,
N. S. Bindra, K. R. Choudhri and R.H. Dhebar, for
the respondent.
1960. October 27. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
KAPUR J .-The petitioners have moved this Court
under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of
mandamus against the respondent to verify the claims
put forward by the petitioners and to grant compensation in respect thereof; but there is little merit to
commend the acceptance of the petition.
The petitioners are displaced persons from West
Punjab which is now known as West Pakistan and
have taken up their residences in different parts of
India. They put forward certain claims in regard to
village houses which they had left in West Pakistan
and which were situate in different villages. The petitioners have in their petition set out their respective
claims which were rejected by the Rehabilitation
authorities. It is unnecessary to give details of the
properties in the various villages in regard to which
claims were made. It is sufficient to say that the
claims were put forward and they were for amounts
above Rs. 20,000 in the case of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2
and above Rs. 10,000 in the case of petitioners Nos. 3
to 6.
The petitioners challenge the vires of two rulesRule 5 under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954, (Act 12 of 1954) and r. 65 of the
Rules made under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act), Act 44 of 1954. The
challenge is on the ground of violation of Art. 14 of
the Constitution. It is necessary at this stage to set
out the various Acts and regulations which were
passed in regard to displaced persons dealing with
16
Makhan Lal
Malhotra
v.
Union of India
Kapur ].
l"'f akhan Lal
Malhotra
v.
Union of India
T<apur J.
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
verification of their claims and the giving of compensation to them.
On April 1, 1948, the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Claims) Act, 1948, East Punjab Act 8 of
1948, was passed and this was followed by the East
Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act 12
of 1948. In the latter Act " land " was defined in
s. 2(b) to mean
"land which is not occupied as the site of any
building in a town or village and is occupied or let
for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient
to agriculture or for pasture and includes-
(i) the sites of buildings and other structures on
such land ; ".
Under s. 2( a) " claim " was defined as
"a statement of loss or damage suffered by a
refugee since the first day of March 1947, in respect of
his land within the territory now comprised in the
Province of (Punjab in Pakistan), North West Frontier
Province, Sind or Baluchistan, or in any State adjacent to the aforesaid Provinces and acceding to
Pakistan ".
Section 4(1) of that Act made provision for submission
for registration of claims in respect of land abandoned
by a refugee.
On November 19, 1949, East Punjab Displaced
Persons (Land Settlement Act) 1949, East Punjab Act
::16 of 1949, was passed. By s. 2(b) of this Act the
word " allot tee " was defined and by s. 2( d) " land "
was defined. This definition which was slightly
different from the definition in the East Punjab Act
(Act 12 of 1948) was as follows:-
S. 2(d). " "Land" means land which is not urban
land and is not occupied as the site of any building in
a town or village and is occupied or let for agricultural
purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or
for pasture and includes-
(i) the sites of buildings and other structures on
such land;".
On May 18, 1950, another Act, the Displaced Persons
(Claims) Act 44 of 1950, was passed by the Central
Legislature. In this Act " claim " was defined in
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
123
s. 2(a) as "the assertion of a right to the ownership
of, or to any interest in-
(i) ..•..••••.......••.........•.••.•...•....•.••.........••......
(ii) such class of property in any part of West
Pakistan other than in any urban area as may be
notified by the Central Government in this behalf in
the Official Gazette;".
This Act was in force for two years and then lapsed.
Under s. 2(a)(ii) the Central Government issued a
notification on May 27, 1950, specifying the property
in respect of which claims might . be submitted. The
properties were :-
( l) Any immoveable property in West Pakistan
which forms part of the assets of an industrial undertaking and is situate in an area other than an urban
area.
(2) Any other immoveable property in West
Pakistan comprising of a building situated in an area,
other than an urban area, the estimated cost of con~
struction of which at present prevailing rates is not
less than Rs. 20,000.
(3) Any agricultural land in any part of West
Punjab".
This shows that claims could only.be submitted in
regard to building in a rural area which was valued
at not less than. Rs. 20,000 and there was no such
restriction in regard to urban area. This notification
was amended by a notification dated September 13,
1950. Clause (2) of the previous notification was
substituted by a new clause:
"(2) Any other immoveable property in West
Pakistan comprising of a building situated in an area
other than an urban area ;
provided that where the person making the claim
has been allotted any agricultural land in India-
(a) where the agricultural land so allotted exceeds
4 acres the value of the building in respect of which
the claim is made shall not, according to the present
estimated cost of construction, be less than Rs. 20,000.
(b) where the agricultural land so allotted is 4
acres or less, the value of the building in respect of
which the claim is made .. :.:all not, according to· the
r960
Makhan Lal
Malhotra
v.
Union of India
Kapur ].
Makhan Lal
1\1 alhotra
·
v.
Union of India
Kapur ].
124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961
present estimated cost of construction, be less than
Rs. 10,000.
Explanation I. .................... .
Explanation II. For the purpose of this clause a
person shall be deemed to have been allotted agricultural land in India if he is allotted such land in any
manner whatsoever whether on temporary or quasi.
permanent basis."
On March 23, 1954, the Displaced Persons (Claims)
Supplementary Act, 1954, Act 12 of 1954, was passed
and s. 12 provided for the ma.king of rules.
Rule 5
was ma.de in the following terms :-
" R. 5. The classes of property in respect of which
claims may be verified under these rules shall be the
same as under the principal Act and the rules ma.de
thereunder, that is to say-
(1) any immoveable property situated within an
urban area in West Pakistan;
(2) any immoveable property in West Pakistan,
which forms part of the assets of an industrial undertaking and is situated in any area other than an
urban area. ;
(3) :any other immoveable property in West
Pakistan comprising of a building situated in any area
other than an urban area ;
Provided that where a claimant has been allotted
any agricultural land in India and that
(a) where the agricultural land so allotted exceeds
four acres, the value of the building in respect of which
the claim is made shall not, according to the present
estimated cost of construction, be less than Rs. 20,000,
(b) where the agricultural land so allotted does
not exceed four acres, the value of building in respect
of which the claim is made, shall not, according to
the present estimated cost of construction, be less than
Rs. I 0,000."
Explanation II is in the same terms as in the notification of September 13, 1950.
On October 9, 1954, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 44 of 1954 (to be
hereinafter termed Act 44 of 1954) was enacted by
Parliament.. Section 2(a iefines compensation pool
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
125
which is constituted under s. 14.
Section 2(e) defines
i96o
" verified claim " as follows :
Ji a khan Lal
" " Verified claim " means any claim registered
,11 al hotra
under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 (44
v.
of 1950) in respect of which a final order has been Union nf India
passed under that Act or under the Displaced Persons·
. --
(Claims) Supplementary
Act, 1954, but does not
Iu•J•ur J.
include ......... ".
Section 4 provided for application for payment of
compensation. Section 7 for the determination of the
am6unt of compensation and s. 40 for the making of
rules.
Rules were. made under this Act by a notification
No. S. R. 0. 1363, dated May 21, 1955.
Rule 2(h)
defines "urban area" and s. 2(f) "rural area" which
means area which is not an urban area. Rule 16 provides for the scale of compensation which is set out in
appendix 8 or 9. Under r. 18 compensation was to be
determined on the total value of all claims which
included all kinds of properties other than agricultural
land left by claimauts in West Pakistan. Rule 44
deals with allotment of acquired evacuee houses iu
rural areas in lieu of compensation. Under sub-r. (3)
of this rule houses in rural areas were graded and
under r. 47 payment of colll:pensation was to be made
subject to r. 65. Rule 57 provided for allotment of
houses iu addition to agricultural land. This rule provided:
H.. 57. " 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 a house in addition to such land in
accordance with the following scalell) Claimants allotted land np to Ten Standard
acres ......... Grade (H),
(2) Claimants allotted and exceeding Ten Standard acres but not exceeding fifty standard acres
.................. Grade (G)
Provided that if such person holds a verified claim
iii respect of any rural building and that claim has
he~n 1:1ati1:1fied wholly or partially before the allotment
of such land, the provisions of rule 65 shall not be
ltfakhan Lal
lllrilhotra
v.
Union of India.
J{apur J.
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961)
applicable in his case but he shall not be entitled to
the allotment of a house or a site and building grant
in lieu thereof.
Explanation I-Where no house is available in the
same village, an allottee may be granted:
(a) 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
(b) if he has been allotted agricultural land exceeding ten standard acres but not exceeding fifty standard acres a site measuring 600 square yards and a
building grant of Rs. 600.
Explanation II-The reference to grades in this rule
is to the grades of houses specified in rule 44."
Rule 61 deals with refusal of acceptance of allotment
and is as under:-
Rule 61. "Where any person refuses to accept
the allotment of any agricultural land offered to him
the claim for compensation of the allottee shall be
deemed to have been satisfied to the extent of the
value of the allotted land and such land shall be
available for allotment to any other claimant."
The impugned rule 65 provided:__:
." (1) Any person to whom more 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. 20,000.
(2) Any person to whom four acres or less 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 ".
It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the
object of the various Acts and the rules made there·
under was to rehabilitate displaced persons but by the
rules a classification had been made which was discriminatory as neither the classes were based on any
intelligible differentia nor was there a rational nexus
between that differentia and the object sought to be
achieved. The classification, according to the argument was: (1) between urban population and rural
..
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
127
population; (2) between refugees from rural areas who
owned lands and those who owned only rural houses
and (3) between those who ba.d quasi-permanent and
permanent allotments.
In order to determine the question raised it is necessary to trace in chronological order the various steps
taken to rehabilitate the millions of persons who were
forced to migrate into India leaving behind properties
worth varyingly large a.mounts. When displaced
persons came from West Punjab and other provinces
of India which became Pakistan, the authorities allott.
ed to every agricultural family certain area. of agricultural land the object being (l) to give temporary
shelter to the displaced persons a.nd (2) to preserve
whatever crops had been left by persons who went
away to Pakistan.
At an Inter-Dominion Conference between the
Governments of India and Pakistan held at Karachi
between January 10 and 13, 1949, a permanent InterDominion Commission was set up to consider the question of administration, sale and transfer of evacuee
property in both the dominions-. In pursuance of this
decision the question in respect of shops and houses in
rural areas was considered by the Commission at New
Delhi on March 11 and 13, 1949. It wa.s recommended at this meeting that buildings in rural areas of the
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 agricultural land and as such were to be
treated as . " agricultural properties " : vide the
minutes of that meeting 8.t p. 242 of a compilation
known as" Documents concerning Evacuee Property"
of the years 1947-51. Chapter IX of the Land Resettlement Manual for Displaced Persons by Mr. Tarlok
Singh, a book of .undoubted authenticity and value,
deals with allotment of rural houses and sites. Rule
3 shows bow the equitable distribution of houses was
to be effected. In order to ensure fairness the size of
the land allotment made to a displaced person and
the type of house abandoned by him were considered
to be major factors. For each standard acre allotted
Makhan Lal
Malhotra
v.
Unio11 of India
Kspur ].
.\l (tkhan Lal
J1(tlhutra
v.
U11io11 of 'fndi1t
J\apur .f.
128
SUPitEME COURT ItEPORTS
[1D6I]
one mark was to be given and subject to a m<iximum
of 20 marks houses abaudoned in West Punjab were
valued at the rate of one mark for each one thousand
of the value of the house and houses above the value
of Rs. 20,000 were excluded for allotment as they
were to be dealt with according to the terms of an
earlier agreement between lndi>L and Pakistan. In
each village aft.er their relative rights had been valued, the a!lottees could choose houses according to the
village list. In appendix 11 of that book is set out the
summary of principles of allotment of rural ev acuoe
houses. Evacuee houses of kamins (menial servants),
artisans, etc. were to be given to displaced artisans
and evacuee shops to evacuee shopkeepers. Itule 3
provided that temporary allotment did not create ally
rights of allotment on quasi-perm<inent basis but
subject to this, allottces were not to be disturbed if
they are otherwise qualified for similar accommodation in the villages. Elaborate rules are given in that
Chapter as to how these allotments were to be made
including partit.ion of houses where two or more
families could be accommodated.
Rule 20 is important and may be quoted :-
Rule 20. "Where necessary, evacuee abadi site:;
should be extended to suit the layouts of model villages.
The Additional Deputy Commissioner should
endeavour to persuade the allottces to surrender a
part of their holdings in exchange for l:tnd out of the
common pool or out of areas excluded from allotmer1t ".
Rule 21 gave effect to another Inter-Dominion agreement and therefore hguses of the value of Rs. 20,000
or more which were liable to exchange or sale were
excluded from allotment.
Thus according to these instructions contained in
that book every effort was made to allot houses to
persons who were allotted lands and in this manner
compensation was sought to be given to displaced persons.
Uy rule 97 made under Central Act 44 of 1954,
rehabilitation grants to allottees of agricultural land
of less than 4 acres were to be given as follows:-
•
2 s.c.r... SUPREME COURT REPORTS
129
R. 97. "Any person who has been allotted four
acres or less of agricultural land and whose claim in
respect of rural buildings left in \Vest Pal~istan has,
by virtue of such allotment., been totally re1ected may
he given a rehabilitation grant:
Provided that-
(a)
he has not accepted such allotment of the
agricultural land or such allotment has been cancelled ;
(b)
he does not hold a veritied claim in respect
of any other kind of property, that is to say, for any
substantial rural building and
Provided further that whern any such person is
given a rehabilitation grant under rule 97 -A, he shall
not be given a rehabilitation grant under this rule ".
H,ule 97-A provided:-
.
"Any person who has been allotted two standard
acres or less of agricultural land in the Stfl.te of Punjab or Patiala and Eu.st Punjab States Union under
~ny notification specified in Section 10 of the Act may
be given a rehabilitation grnnt at the rate of Hs. 450
per standard acre of the area allotted to him.
Provided that-
(a)
he has not accepted such allotment of the
agricultural land or such allotment has been cancelled;
(b)
he does not hold a vel'ified claim in respect
of any other kind of property, that is to say, for any
urban property or for a,ny substantial rural building".
By H.ule 57 which has already been quoted, houses of
all grades were allotted to persons who were allotted
certain ai'eas of land and provision was made for
building sites and payment of building grants where
no houses were available in the villages. These rules
made under Act 44 of 1954 and those set out in Land
Resettlement Manual by Mr. Tarlok Singh show that
every one waf:! allotted or was given building sites
and money for the purpose_of houses in rural areas.
The rule in regard to filing of claims for houses
valued at Its. 10,000 or more where allotment of land
was up to 4 acres and Rs. 20,000 or more where allotment of land waH in excess of 4 acres was also in pursuance of i~n Inter-Dominion Agreement be~ween the
17 ..
111 ak/titll Lal
M al/<e>lra
v.
Uuion of India
Kapur ].
MaAhan Lal
MalhoJra
v.
Union of India
Kapur ].
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1961]
two Governments which has received recognition in
Ait. 31(5)(b)(iii). Thus it appears that rules made in
regard to fixing of the value of the houses for olaim of
Re. 10,000 in one case and Rs. 20,000 in the other
was a policy decision arising out of an agreement at a
meeting of the Inter-Dominion Commission with
regard to evaluation of evacuee property.
Rules
which have been framed are only restatement of what
was contained in the notifications of May 27, 1950,
and September 13, 1950, which themselves were the
result of· decisions arrived at the meetings of the
Inter-Dominion Commission.
Under Art. 14 of the Constitution the State shall not
deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territories of
India. By judicial decisions the doctrine of classification has been incorporated in the equality clause,
but the classification cannot be arbitrary but must be
based upon differences pertinent to the subject iu respect of the purpose for which it is made. There must
be a reasonable nexus between the classification and
the object sought to be achieved. The object of the
impugned provisions, read with. the relevant Acts, is
to rehabilitate the evacuees on an equitable basis. To
implement the scheme of rehabilitation the evacuee
law has classified evacuees under different categories.
Broadly speaking, the main division is between persons who were residing in Pakistan in rural areas
with agriculture as their avocation and those persons
who were residing in urban areas in Pakistan. Persons from rural areas have been divided into two categories, namely, persons who owned agricultural land
with a building as part of the holding and persons
who held agricultural land with an independent building which cannot be described as part of the holding.
Separate treatment is given to rural areas and urban
areas. In the rural areas, land with a building is
treated as one unit, but when the building is of a substantial value it is put in a different category and
separately compensated for.
This classification has
certainly a reasonable relation to the object of rehabilitation, for it cannot be de!lied that the three categories require separate treatments for the purpose of
•
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
131
resettlement on new lands a.nd for the payment of
compensation.
It can:iot be seriously disputed tha.t a house in a
rural area. and that in an urban a.rea. cannot be treated alike, but the ree.l grievance of the petitioners is in
respect of the distinction between houses in rural areas.
As to what is a substantial building has to be ascertained and a line must be drawn somewhere. ~Here
the question arises whether the ~lassification has been
made arbitrarily and without any sound basis. It
may perhaps appear odd to say that a property worth
Rs. 9,999 in one case or a property worth Rs. 19,999 in
another would be a building of unsubstantial chara.cter or that the extent of the land, namely, four acres
in one case and above four acres in another have a.ny
releyant bearing on the substantiality of the building.
This perha.ps may lend support to the plea of discrimination but an unprecedented situation had to be
faced and provision made for . the rehabilitation of
such a vast multitude of humanity who had been
uprooted from their homes.
This necessitated an
equitable treatment for them all and an equal distribution of the available evacuee properties left in
India.. In order to lighten the heavy burden undertaken an Inter-Dominion adjustment became necessary and the two Dominions entered into a.n agreement presumably based upon the relevant circumstances in regard to the treatment of rural house property. The reasonableness of the classification must
therefore be judged after ta.king these surrounding
circumstances and the conditions then prevailing into
consideration. The ha.sis of the classification must be
judged by the fa.ct that compensation is given in every
case. Rules 57 and 97-A framed under Act 44 of
1954 afford a reasonable justification for the classification.
Under the Rules every displaced person who has
settled in a rural area is allotted a house in addition
to such land ; if no house is available in the same
village the allottee is given a site e.nd a. building graut.
But where his claim for a house is rejected he is given
Makhan Lal
Malhotra
v.
Union of India
Kapur J.
Makhan Lal
Malhotra
v.
Union of India
Kapur ].
132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
a rehabilitation grant. But under the impugned pro.
visions separate compensation is given for a rural
house of value above a prescribed limit. It will, therefore, be seen that the classification is not arbitrary
but is based upon sound principles and on equitable
considerations. A distinction between a rural house
which is part of a holding and one which is not a
part of a holding but an independent unit is made
and different principles of rehabilitation are applied
to meet different situations. The hardship which the
division into two categories must cause is diluted by
providing to the claimant falling on the wrong side of
the line a rural house or a rehabilitation grant.
The attack on the ground of want of intelligible
differentia must fail. Appendix XI of Land Resettlement Manual by Mr. Tarlok Singh illustrates the principles of allotment of rural evacuee houses and the
elaborate system of ,marking which was done in order
to either give houses to a1lottees of land or to give
them building sites with subsidy to build houses and
finally in r. 97 and r. 97-A of the .rules made under
Act 44 of 1954 detailed provisions were made for
rehabilitation grants including grants to those allottees of agricultural land whose claim for rural property had been rejected or who had refused to take land
allotted to them. Similarly r. 57 which has been
quoted above shows that a provision bas been made
for giving sites as well as subsidy for building houses.
It cannot be said therefore that the rules suffer from
any infirmity on the ground of discrimination.
In the result this petition fails and is dismissed with
costs of.
Petition dismissed.