CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for determination in this appeal under clause 10 of the Letter Patent is whether under sub-rules,(3) of rule 73 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the Rules), an allotte fulfilling all the conditions as laid down in the sub-rule(3), is entitled to get the land which has been found to have been allotted in excess at the reserved price fixed by the Department or weather it is entirely discretionary with the Department to allow to purchase such excess land at the reserved price.

(2.) Some land allotted to Ram Singh etc. was found to be in excess and the Chief Settlement Commissioner held that they had no vested right to purchase the excess land. They then filled civil writ no. 772 of 1964 challenging this decision.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, after discussing the provisions of Rule 73 and comparing it with the wording of Rule 25 of the Rules, and relying on Sodhi Harbakhsh Singh v. The Central Government and others, 1962 64 PunLR 629where in a number of cases were discussed and it was held that the word "may" in Rule 25 is equivalent to "shall" in its effect, observed as follows :-