UTTAM CHAND Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not in controversy and may be briefly narrated. The petitioner, Uttam Chand got a claim registered in respect of the property left behind by him in Pakistan. The registered number of his verified claim is 2539. The registered number of the verified claim to Lal Chand father of the petitioner, who had separate property, is No. 2540. Lal Chand died on 20th February 1952, without having been allotted any property in his name.

(2.) IT is common ground that the petitioner, who has been allotted agricultural land measuring more than 4 acres, is not entitled to any compensation under Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, his verified claim being less than Rs. 20,000/ -. The relevant rule is to this effect:

(3.) THE rules which have been prescribed under the Act, inter alia, deal with the form and manner of payment of compensation and Rule 65, under which the petitioner's claim has been rejected, does not appear to me to be applicable as no allotment had been made in respect of this particular claim to Lal Chand or indeed any one else. The right to claim compensation in respect of the verified claim has been inherited by the petitioner as the only heir of Lal Chand. It is not disputed that the petitioner is entitled as the heir of Lal father's verified claim. If Lal Chand had been alive, there can be no doubt that he would have been entitled to receive compensation and the construction which has been put on Rule 65 (1) by the Departmental authorities has the effect of bringing about this astounding result that the death of Lal Chand extinguishes his claim a result which could not conceivably have been in contemplation of the Legislature and indeed runs counter to the true scope and purpose of the Rules. There is no reason, in my opinion, to aggravate the misfortune suffered by the petitioner in his father's death by putting a strained interpretation on Rule 65 (1) to deprive him even of the inheritance which he is entitled to receive as the heir of the deceased.