SODHI HARBAKSH SINGH S/O SODHI HARDIT SINGH Vs. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REHABLLITATION, GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, and it has been referred to us because the learned Single Judge who first heard it felt that there was some conflict of views concerning the meaning of Rule 26 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955.

(2.) THE Petitioner is a displaced person. He put in a claim which was verified. It was a small claim and in satisfaction of it a residential house was transferred to him in accordance with Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. He was However also in occupation of two vacant sites and he claimed that those should also be transferred to him in accordance with Rule 26. The resettlement authorities agreed to transfer one -of the sites to the Petitioner treating him as a non -claimant under Rule 26. They, however, declined to transfer the second site observing that it was not in accordance with departmental practice to allow multiple allotments, the meaning being that one individual was not to be transferred more than one property of the same kind. It is against this decision that the present petition is directed and the argument in support of the petition is that under Rule 26 the Petitioner being in the sole occupation of the disputed site is entitled to have it transferred to him on payment of the appropriate price and there is an obligation on the part of the re -settlement authorities to make the transfer. Rule 26 of the Rules says this - -

(3.) WHERE an acquired evacuee property which is an allotable property is in the sole occupation of a displaced person who does not hold a verified claim, the property may be transferred to him. It is somewhat doubtful, as pointed out by Mr. Sikri, whether the Petitioner can legitimately be called a displaced person who does not hold a verified claim as the Rules and also the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act seem to divide, displaced persons into two separate categories, namely, those having a verified claim, as the Petitioner undoubtedly did, and those not having any verified claim, and Rule 26 is obviously meant to deal with those persons who, although displaced, do not hold a verified claim. I do not, however, propose to pursue this matter further as the resettlement authorities have apparently decided to treat the Petitioner as a non claimant. The question then is whether Rule 26 casts any obligation on the authorities to transfer allotable property to a non -claimant in whose occupation such property may happen to be or whether the rule merely vests a power in the authority concerned to make the transfer or not according to the circumstances. Mr. Wasu contends that although the word used in Rule 26 is 'may', it really means 'must'. To support this unusual construction learned Counsel relies largely on two decisions of this Court. The first is Civil. Writ No. 40 of 1960, Shri Ramji Dass v. Ministry, of Rehabilitation, Govt. of India, D/ - 10 -11 -1960 by Shamsher Bahadur, J., and the second is Civil Writ No. 685 of 1960, S. Karam Singh v. The Chief Settlement Commr., Ministry of Rehabilitation D/ - 25 -4 -1961 by Mehar Singh, J., in which he followed the view adopted by Shamsher Bahadur, J., in the earlier case.