HOLOMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Holomal. resident of Quarter No. 54. Dwarka Nagar Colony, Jabalpur, State of Madhya Pradesh. This petition is concerned with the allotment and transfer of the said quarter No. 54 under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The petitioner was a claimant whereas the other occupant of the quarter. Shri Hirdho Mal, respondent No. 4 was a non-claimant. The relevant rules for transfer of this property were contained in the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, in Rules 30 and 31. As the rules originally existed, the petitioner was entitled to get the transfer of the property because the property was allottable property and the petitioner was the only claimant in the said property. It may be recalled that the provisions of Rule 30 were changed from time to time but as long as that rule existed every amendment of the rule would favour the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Initially the price of the property appears to have been adjusted by the Settlement Officer on or about 15th September, 1959. The fourth respondent who was the other occupant of the house was apparently dissatisfied with the manner in which the property had been dealt with by the authorities and moved the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Indore, claiming that he was entitled to the transfer of the property. This application was dismissed on the ground that the property had already been transferred. An appeal was taken by the fourth respondent to Shri Parshotam Sarup. Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner who held on 8th August, 1962 that the order holding that the property had already been transferred was not sustainable. According to him the two persons i.e. Holomal and Hirdhe Mal were both occupants of the quarter and their eligibility had to be determined somehow before the quarter could be transferred. He accordingly accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Officer as well as the order transferring the property to the petitioner and directed the eligibility of the parties to be determined under Rule 30 of the said Rules.

(3.) After remand, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner decided the case again in favour of Holomal petitioner. He held that although respondent No. 4 had got a claim arising out of agricultural property, the same could not be used for built-up properties. He also held that at the initial stage, the fourth respondent did not even have this claim. On a further appeal to the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, it was held that the property had been rightly held to be transferable to the petitioner. One of the questions urged before the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner was that Rule 30 and Rule 31 had been repealed and there had been an amendment in Rule 22, by which an explanation had been added to that rule stating that if two or more persons were in occupation of an allottable property, the same should be sold. It was held by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner that the rule was not retrospective and did not affect a pending case. Certain passage from Maxwell's Interpretations of Statutes, 9th Edition as well as the judgment of Shamsher Bahadur, J. in Civil Writ No. 444-D/59 (Punj) were relied upon.