H K CHOUDHURY REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER BOMBAY H K CHOUDHURY REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER BOMBAY Vs. ISSARDAS KUNDANMAL MOTIANI:2 LACHMADAS HOTECHAND KRIPALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals by special leave raise a common question of interpretation of R. 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is common ground that nothing turns on any dissimilarity in the facts of each appeal. It will accordingly suffice if facts in Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1964 are set out.

(2.) The respondent, Lachmandas Hotechand Kripalani, 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 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 situate 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 gazette. It is common ground that agricultural land in Sind was so notified. The respondents claim was that he owned 1/4 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.

(3.) on July 2, 1955, the respondent applied for compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation 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 Pakistan, but his claim was as a co-sharer along with three others, who had filed separate claims. The Assistant 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 cosharers 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 respondent. This statement showed that his claim was assessed as Rs. 10,701 gross compensation. This figure was arrived at, as stated in the affidavit of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, thus: