I S BAJAJ Vs. ARJAN DAS DAYARAM VACHHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (reported in AIR 1966 Bom 133) allowing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani challenging the order of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner (with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner) under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), hereafter referred to as the Act, disallowing the writ petitioner's revision from the order of the Settlement Officer (with delegated powers of Settlement Commissioner) which had affirmed on appeal the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The writ petitioner's case was held to fall within R. 19 (3) of the Displaced Persons (C and R) rules, hereafter called the Rules, made by the Central Government under Section 40 of the Act. The question which falls for decision is a very short one and it relates to the meaning and effect of Rule 19 (3).

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. Kishan Chand Dayaram Vachhani and his four sons, Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani, Dayaram A. Vachhani, Ramchand Dayaram Vachhani and Kanayalal Dayaram Vachhani constituted a joint Hindu family when, as a result of partition of the country in 1947, they migrated from Sind (now in Pakistan) to India. After their migration Kishanchand Dayaram Vachhani, the father, made an application for verification of claim in respect of the properties left by the joint Hindu family in Sind. This claim was duly verified. It is unnecessary to make a detailed reference to the history of the case. Suffice it to say that on October 28, 1961 Shri Purshottam Sarup, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner (with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner) (Rehabilitation Department) allowed the appeal preferred by Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani from the order of Shri H. K. Chaudhary, Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay, dated May 14, 1961 and after setting aside the impugned order, directed that the property in question be treated as joint family property in which the parties would be entitled to apportionment as members of joint Hindu family in accordance with the Rules. Pursuant to this direction Shri K. S. Bedi, Assistant Settlement Officer, Bombay on June 12, 1963 directed that the case be re-processed. Shri Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani appealed from this order to the Settlement Officer (with delegated powers of the Regional Settlement Commissioner) but without success. That officer recorded a fairly exhaustive order dated October 21, 1963 in which the entire history of the case was noticed. A revision was taken to the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, Shri Purshottam Sarup (with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner). That officer also went into the controversy at some length and by his order dated February 13, 1964 disallowed Shri. Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani's claim both under Rule 20 and Rule 19 (2) of the Rules. It was pointed out that in his (Shri Purshottam Sarup's) earlier order it has been clearly stated that the parties constituted a joint Hindu family and were entitled to apportionment. The father and the sons could not be treated as separate and that their claim as tenants in common or as co-sharers was contrary to his earlier decision which had remained unchallenged. In view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 19, rule 19 (2) was held inapplicable.

(3.) On an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the High Court disagreed with the view of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and held Rule 19 (3) to be inapplicable when the joint Hindu family consists only of father and his sons. On this view the order of the departmental authorities was set aside. The short question which now falls for our determination in this appeal is whether the sons of Kishanchand Dayaram Vachhani are entitled to claim the benefit Rule 19 (2) which has been granted by the High Court on their writ petition in disagreement with the view of the departmental authorities which excluded the claim of the sons under Rule 19 (3) Rule 19 may here be read: