JAMNA BAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to the Full Bench in Civil Writ No. 500 of 1963 in pursuance of the order of my learned brother Dua J. and myself.

(2.) THE dispute in the above writ petition relates to house No 181. B-IX situated in ludhiana. The aforesaid house is indivisible and its different parts were allotted to jamna Bai petitioner and respondents 4 to 8. They were however, all non-claimants. Bhagat Ram Dass, husband of Jamna Bai, happened to be claimant and as such claimed other transfer of the house on the ground that he was living in it along with his wife. The Settlement Officer held as per order dated February 17, 1962, that Bhagat Ram Das was not living with his wife and as such the eligibility of the parties for the transfer of the house should be determined under Rule 31 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). An appeal was filed against the above order and the deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement commissioner accepted the appeal, set aside other order of the Settlement Officer and remanded the case with the direction that the eligibility be determined under rules 30 or 31 as the case might be after recording evidence. After remand the settlement Officer found that Bhagat Ram Das was also in occupation of the house along with his wife and as he was a claimant he was entitled to the transfer of the house in preference to the other occupants. The matter was then taken up by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to the Deputy Chief settlement Commissioner who following a decision of my learned brother Capoor j. in Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. Chief settlement Commr. Civil Write No. 193-D of 1958, D/- 9-11-1962 (Punj) held that Bhagat Tam Das could not be deemed to be in possession of the property as required by Rules 30 because he was not in occupation of the house in his own right. Bhagat Ram Das and his wife Jamna Bai thereupon filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, and the contention raised on their behalf was that the interpretation placed upon Rule 30 by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner as well as by Capoor J. , in the above mentioned case was not correct. The matter initially came up before Dua, J. Who on account of other challenge to the correctness of the view taken in Ram Jawaya kapoor's case, Civil writ No. 193-D of 1958, D/- 9-11-1962 (Punj) held that it was desirable that the case be disposed of by a larger Bench. The case was then placed before Dua J. , and myself. As it was pointed out to us that other was some conflict of opinion and we also felt that the matter was of importance, we directed that the case might be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for referring the matter to the full Bench.

(3.) AFTER we have passed the above order for reference to the Full Banch, shamsher Bahadur J, before whom Civil Writs Nos. 216, 217 and 448 of 1\962 came up for hearing, passed an order on lithe September 1964 that as the question arising for determination in those petitions was identical with one which had been referred to the Full Bench in Civil Writ No. 500 of 1963, those three writ petitions be also placed before the Full Bench so that the counsel in those cases could also make submissions before the Full Bench.