VIRANWALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constiution are briefly as follows : Late Shiv Lal Malik had filed some claims in respect of certain immovable properties left by him in the territory which is now in Pakistan but died later, on '6.12.1954, when some of his claims had not been finally verified. His widow, Smt. Viran Wali and his adult sons (three) were substituted in his place on 3.S.1955 After such subsitution, Smt. Viran Wali was paid Rs. six thousand six hundred and seventeen in cash on 27.2.1956 by way of compensation; statements of account 'were issued to her sons. In May, 4956, the sons purchased property worth about Rs. 12,000.00 After adjusting the value of the purchased property they had a credit balance of Rs. 3,75 2.1. For this amount a draft was issued by the Regional Settlement Authorities, Patna, and sent to the Regional Commissioner, Delhi, for disbursement as the sons were living at Delhi. The Regional Settlement Commissioner, Delhi, however, returned the draft to the Regional Settlement Commissioner patna. for amendment, taking the view that for the purpose of calculation of compensation, the entire claim put in by Shiv Lal Malik was to be treated as a single unit and the benefit of Rule 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, was not admissible.

(2.) Against the said order, Smt. Viran Wali preferred, an appeal to the Settlement Commissioner (Shri Y.L.Taneja). who had the delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner. He accepted the appeal and directed that the sons of Viran Wali should be paid the amount due to them calculated on the basis of Rule 19 as it was then. In other words, he held the view that the old rule, as it originally stood, before it was substituted by what was published in the Gazzette of India on 19-5-55 alone applied. Since Shiv Lal Malik was not living at the. time of the filing of the compensation application, the family had to be considered as consisting of the mother and her 3 sons: the case fell under clause B of Sub-rule 2 of rule 19. It was observed by Shri Taneja that the Patna Regional Settlement Commissioner .had made correct calculations on the above said basis and had righty issued a demand draft for delivery of the sum to the sons of the petitioner.

(3.) There was a departmental reference for setting aside the said order and the Government of India by means of its order, dated 5-9-1963, set aside the order of Shri Taneja in so far as it pertains to the sons only (but not with reference to Smt. Viran Wali the widow) and directed that -the compensation payable to the sons should be determined only in accordance with rule 19, as it was amended. Annexure "F" to the petition is a copy of the said order, which is sought to be quashed in tbjs writ petition.