Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

(8) before proceeding further it would be patient to refer to some of the decided cases to see as to what view has been taken in the matter. In Civil Writ No. 193D of 1958(Punj) decided by my learned horthers Capoor J, on 9th November, 1962, the petitioners were Ram Jawaya Kapur and his son Shanti Swarup. The question related to eligibility for transfer of a property part of which had been allotted to Shanti Swarup and part to Devki Devi and Daulat Ram respondents 3 and 4. The petitioners as well as respondents 3 and 4 were displaced persons, but only Ram Jawaya Kapur petitioner held a verified claim in his own name. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that even though the allotment order of a part of the house was in favour n of Shanti Swarup Kapur, Ram Jawaya Kapur should be deemed to be in occupation of the property for the purpose of rule 30 and as such entitled to the transfer of the property.

(12) It would appear from the above resume that the only case decided by this Court, in which there has been a discussion and the matter now arising for determination by the Full Bench has been thrashed, is the decision of Capoor J. In Ram Jawaya Kapoor's case, civil writ No 2193-D of 1958, D/- 9-11-1962(Punj). Although the learned counsel for the parties have addressed us at some length, nothing has been urged before us to shake the correctness or assail the validity of other reasoning in Ram Jawaya Kapoor's case, civil writ No. 193-D of 1958, D/- 9-11-1962(Punj) Rule 30 finds place in Chapter V of the Rules which deals with payment of compensation by transfer of evacuee properties. These Rules have been framed of by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 40 of the Displaced Persons conferred obey section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954(Act No. 44 of 1954). The aforesaid Chapter comprises Rules 22 to 34. Rule 22 gives the classification of acquired evacuee property which may be allotted, while Rule 23 provides that all evacuee properties which are allotable should ordinarily be sold. Rule 24 prescribes the mode of the valuation of acquired evacuee allotable property. Rule 25 makes provision for transfer of acquired evacuee allotable property to persons in sole occupation there of who holds a verified claim. While Rule 26 prescribes for the transfer of acquired evacuee allotable property in sole occupation of a person who does not hold a verified claim. According to rule 27 the balance of the value of a property may be paid in instalments while Rule 28 gives the rate of interest on the amount payable by instalments. Rule 29 deals with the contingency where a person eligible for the transfer of the property refuses to accept transfer.