RAM LAL KARAM CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Lal in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution if india has prayed that the orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in regard to the payment of Rupees 3, 744, 77 out of the amount of compensation due to him under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation )Act. to Dial Dass respondent No. 6 may be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan where he is said to have abandoned considerable urban immovable property for which his claims (annexure 'a'. A-1 and A-2 ) to the tune of Rs. 35,472. 00 had been verified. Three properties out of those stood already mortgaged with Dial Dass respondent No. 6. The amount of claim verified for these was Rs. 19,570. 00. Respondent No. 6 filed an application under S. 10 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment ) Act before the Tribunal. Karnal. The parties compromised their dispute as a result of which his claim for Rs. 14,500. 00 was accepted and he elected under S. 16 (2) of the said Act to retain his security in the form of mortgage (copies of the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal. Annexures B and B-1 ). The petitioner before the claim of mortgagee-respondent No. 6 could be paid applied for a loan of Rs. 8,000. 00 under the House Building loan scheme from the government which was sanctioned. This was payable in three equal instalments out of which first two instalments totalling Rupees 5,332, 00 had been received by him. He then approached the Settlement Officer for Payment of the compensation on the basis of his verified claims (annexures A. A-1 and A-2 ). The Settlement officer assessed the compensation at Rs. 9,161,00 out of which Rs. 125. 00 arrears of rent and Rs. 8,000. 00 house building loan were deducted. The balance Rs. 1,036. 00 was directed to be paid to the mortgagee-respondent No. 6 (annexure c ). The petitioner under an impression that Rs. 1,036. 00 were not payable to the mortgagee felt aggrieved from this order and filed an appeal before the Assistant settlement Commissioner (Appeals) respondent No. 3 which stood dismissed on 9th March. 1959 (Annexure D. ). In the meantime. the Settlement Officer reviewed his previous order and directed that Rs. 3,744. 77 should be paid to respondent No. 6. He deducted Rs. 5,332. 00 only as house building loan and Rs. 125. 00 as arrears of rent out of the total amount due to the petitioner by way out of compensation while ascertaining the amount payable to the mortgagee. The petitioner felt aggrieved from this order as well and preferred an appeal to the authorities concerned but to no effect. He pleaded that the orders of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 directing the payment of Rs. 3,744. 77 to the mortgagee-respondent No. 6 were bad in law because according to S. 16 (3) (a) of the Displaced persons (Debts Adjustment) Act a creditor to have a first charge on the compensation amount paid in cash provided that the amount of debt in respect of which he should be that amount as bears to the total debt the same proportion as the compensation paid in respect of the property bears to the value of the verified claim in respect thereof. In his view the mortgage amount was to be treated as first charge only on that amount of compensation which was to be paid in hard cash to him. He further urged that after deducting Rupees 125. 00 arrears of rent and Rs. 8,000. 00 granted to him as house building loan. a sum of Rs. 1,036. 00 remained to be paid in cash and so the mortgagee should have been determined in terms of S. 16 (3) (a) of the above Act treating this amount as the compensation paid in respect of the mortgaged property. He emphatically contended that although the third instalment of the house building loan. i. e. . Rs. 2,708. 77 had not been received by him but still the same could be deemed to have been sanctioned and so was liable to be deducted form the total amount of compensation before determining the amount due to respondent No. 6.

(3.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 5 in their written statement explained that the petitioner's compensation application was processed and adjustment of Rs. 5,291. 23 towards house building lone was communicated to the Deputy commissioner. Karnal. and after adjustment of rent and deduction of Rupees 3,744. 77 as mortgage charge pertaining to the decree from the Tribunal. there was nothing left to be paid to him. They further maintained that deduction of two instalments which had actually been received by him was made from the compensation and to this alone he was entitled under the rules. Dial Dass respondent No. 6 stated that the cash compensation payable to the petitioner was rs. 9,161. 00 and not Rs. 1,036. 00 as contended by him and that public due for which the petitioner was actually liable on the date his compensation application was processed could be deduction from the compensation due to him and no more.