SUNDER DAS BHASIN Vs. REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for writ: by Sunder Das Bhasin, under Article 226 of the constitution, challenging the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaipur, dated 28-1-1957, and of the Regional Settlement Commissioner dated 21-2-1957, by which they refused to grant him compensation for certain rural properties left by him in Pakistan while migrating to India, on the ground that he was an allottee of agricultural land within the meaning of Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Displaced persons Compensation Rules) made under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act No. XLIV of 1954) (hereinafter called the Displaced Persons Compensation Act ).

(2.) THE material facts are these Prior to his settling down in India, the petitioner was admittedly a resident of Village Chak Ramdas, Tehsil Bhulwal, District sargodha, in what is now called the West Pakistan. It is also admitted that the petitioner owned and possessed (1) one residential house and (2) a shop-cumresidential building in the said village in addition to certain agricultural land. The petitioner filed his claim bearing index No. P/sh3/ 316 before the Additional settlement Commissioner, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Delhi, in which he valued the aforesaid rural properties at Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- respectively. The additional Settlement Commissioner reduced the claim to Rs. 6,675/-and Rs. 6,120/- for both the properties respectively by his order dated 28-3-1955, and verified it accordingly, vide Ex. 1. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for grant of compensation to the Settlement Officer, Jaipur, on 31-31956. It is important to mention at this stage that the petitioner had been allotted what is called 2 1/4 units of land in lieu of his agricultural land left by him in pakistan. By his order dated 28-1-1957, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaipur, informed the petitioner that no payment of compensation could be made to him in lieu of his rural claim under Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons Compensation Rules, as he was an allottee of agricultural land, The petitioner went in appeal to the Regional settlement Commissioner, and the latter by his order dated 21-2-1957, maintained the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, whereupon the petitioner has come up with his present application to this Court.

(3.) THE main contentions raised by the petitioner in his application are that Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons Compensation Rules, under which the petitioner's claim has been rejected, is not applicable to his case; and, secondly, that, in any case, in considering the applicability of Rule 65, it is the total value of the rural buildings left by the displaced persons in Pakistan that has to be considered, and not the value of each building individually, and that if so considered, the petitioner's claim for compensation cannot be rejected, inasmuch as the total value of the properties left by him in rural area was more than Rs. 10,000/ -. It is also contended that rule 65 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.