THE REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER versus SUNDERDAS BHASIN

W ANOHoo, J.-The short question raised in this appeal by special leave is whether it is possible to add up the value of more than one rural building, each ofwbioh is less than Rs.I0,000/- or Rs.20,000/· in order to reach the total of Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of taking the case for compe1111&tion for rural buildings. out of the ambit of r. 65 of the RuJea :framed under the Diaplaeecl Paw (ComP""'tiOD and RehabiliWion\ Aot, 1964.

p. 535

(44 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The brief facts necessary for this purpose are these. Tho respondent is a displaced person. who migrated from what is now part of West Pakistan to India . It appears that he had agricultural land as well as houses in the rural area in the place from where he migrated. He was allowed ·2-1 /2 11~res of land in the Punjab in of the agricultural land left by him in what is now Pakistan. In addition he also left behind a house and a shop. He' claimed Rs. 12,000/for thf.' house and Rs. 8,000/- for the ~hop as compensation. The Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed his claim to the extent of Rs. 6,674/- for the house :md Rs. 6,120/- for the shop, the total thus coming to Rs. 12,796/- . This was adjudged in :\fa.rch 195ii. Thereafter, the rc8pondent made an application to the Settlement Officer Jaipur in March 195!i for compensation under the Act. This claim of his was however rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer Jaipur on the ground that it could not be entertained in view of r. 65 of the Rules, as he was allotted agricultural land to the extent of 2-1/2 acres. The respondent then appealed to the Regional Settlement Commissiont•r who upheld the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. Thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan and the main contention raised by him there wa8 that in order to determine the limit of R•. 10,0CO/- provided in r. (i5(2) the value of all the rural buildinge left by him in Pakistan should be ~dded up and if the total is· more than Rs. 10,000/- he is cot:ith·d to compensation. This contention has been accepted by the High Court which directed that the respondent should be paid ccmpensation to which he was entitled under tho Rules for the rural buildings left by him the value of which ccllectively was more than Rs. 10,0()0/- . It is this order of tho High Court which ie challenged before us in the present appeal.

p. 536

It may be mentioned that this question has been raised in three High Courts. The Punjab High Court, by a Full Bench decision in Ohananilas Mukhi v. the Union of India ( held that in order that a person may be entitled to. compensation for rural buildings left in Pakistan and thus take the case out of the ambit or r. 65 it is necessary that the rural buildings left by him should each · be of the value ·of Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/- or more, as the case may be, and that a displaced person ia not entitled to compensation ifhe has left more than one rural building, the value of each being less than Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/-, though the total value of such buildings left by him may be more than Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,00,0/-, as the case may be. The Bombay High Court on the other hand where a similar question was raised has taken the same view as the Rajasthan High Court in Tofaram Teckchanil v. H.K. OhowJJtari ('). What we have to determine therefore is which of these two views is correct.

p. 537

Rule 65 is in these terms :- "65. Separate compensation for. rura~ building not to be paid in certLLin cases. (1) Any person to whom four a.ores or more of agricultural land have been allotted shall not be entitled to receive compensation separately in respect of his verified claim for any rural bi,iilding the asseased

p. 537

value of which is less than Rs. 20,000/- (2) Any person to whom lees than four acres of agricultural land have been allotted ehall not be entitled to receive compenaa'. tion separately in respect of hie verified claim for any rural building the . a.Seeeeed value of whieh is lees than Re. 10,000/- · Bom.~, Though the point in dispute in the present appeal arises on r. 65 (2), it is clear that what we say about r. 65 (2) will equally apply to r. 65 (I), tho only difference between th" two sub-rules being that in one case the vahw of the rural building is Rs.20,000/· while in the other it is Rs. 10,000/- and in one case the allotm~nt of agricultural land is four or more a.ores and in the other case of Jess than four a.ores. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that r. 65 was framed primarily in pursuance of an inter- Dominion agreement by which it was agreed that no compensation ~hould be payable for a rural building where its value is less than Rs.20,000/-. It is further urged that the reason for this rule was that a rural building worth foss than Rs.20,000/· was treated as an adjunct to the agricultural land left by a displacrd person in Pakistan and it was decided to give compensation for any rural building which was less than Rs.20,000/- in value by other ways and not as compensation. This other way is provided in r. 5i of the Rules. Rule 5i provides that a displaced person having a verified claim in respect of agricult,ural land who has settled in a rural area and to whom agricultural land has been allotted, may be allotted a house in addition to such land. The rule further provides that where no hou8o is available for allotment in the village in which the land is allotted, the allottee may be granted, if he has been allotted agricultural land not exceeding ten standard acres, a site measuring 400 square yards and a building grant of Rs.400/-, and if he has been allotted agricultural land exceeding ten standard acres but not exceeding 50 standard acres, a site measuring 400 square yards and a building grant of Rs. 600/- a.nd if he has been allotted agricultural land exceeding ten standard acres but not exceeding 50 standard acres, a site measuring 600 square yards and a building grant of Ra. 600/-. It is 11aid that r. 57 th1111 provides for compensation where a building left by a displaced person in Pakistan is less than Rs.20,000(or Rs. L0,000(- in value as the case may be. Further, it is pointed out that there is another provision in the Rules, namflly r. 97, which deals with certain contingencies where the allottee has refused the allotment of agricultural land ·or where such allotment has been cancelled. It is therefore urged that when r. 65 provides that no compensation would be given for any rural building which was worth less than Rs. 20,000(- or Rs.10,000(- it referred to the value of each building and the case could not be taken out of the .ambit of r. 65 if a displaced person had left more than one rural building and the value of all such buildings was more than Rs.10,000( - or Rs.20,000/- taken together. The reason for this, according to the appellant, is the provision in r. 57.

pp. 537–539

On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the respondent that ifr. 65 is not unambiguous on this point and can have two meanings, it should be so interpreted as to favour the displaced person so that he may get some compensation for the rural buildings left by him in Pakistan, It is urged further that the words "any rural building" in r. though in singular, can be read in plural also in view of s. 13 of the General Clauses Act, and that they should be so read in order to help the displaced person in getting compensation. ·

p. 539

In order to decide between the two rival contentions we have to see the background in which r. 65 came to be framed, for it is that background which will help in determining one way or the other its propor interpretation. Rule 65 came up for consideration in this Court once before, when it was challenged as ultra vires on the ground that it made a discrimination between rural building for whitih compensation was payable only if they were above certain value and urban buildings for which compensation was payable, if they were of any value. The constitutionality of r .. 65 was upheld by this Court in Maklw.nlal Malhotra v. The Union of India ('). In that caae this Court went into the background which was responsible for the apparent discrimination between rural buildings and urban buildings. At an inter-Dominion . Confennce between the Governments of India and Pakistan held at Karachi between January 10 and 13, 1949, a permanent inter-Dominion Commission was set up to consider the question of administration, sale and transfer of evacuee property in . be.th the Dominions. In persuance of thia decision the question in respect of shops and houses in rural areas was considered bv the Commission at New Delhi on Mur.h I and ·13, 11149. It was reoommen· dt>d at this meeting that buildings in rural areas of value of Rs. 20,000/· or more shouid be considered to be substantial buildings and the buildings whioh were of leBBer value than that were to be treated as appendages of agriculture land and such were to be treated as "agricultural properties". Thie shows that the basis for J->Urposes of value was the building and the ownership of the building had nothing to do with this limit. It is this agreement which in substance is the basis of r. 65 though the rigour of this agreement bas been softened by making provisions of two kinds one for those to whom four acres or more were allotted and the otht>r for those to whom less than four acres were allotted and the limit was kept at Rs. 20,000/- in the case of the former while it was reduced to Rs. I 0 ,000 /·in the oaee of the latter. But it is clear from the agree• ment of March 1949 that compensation was to be provided for an individual buildings worth Ra. 20,000/-or more and other buildings of lees value were to be treated as appendages to the agricultural land owned by a displaced person in Pakietall s.c.R The intention behind the agreement obviously was to treat only buildings which were individually more than Rs. 20,000/- as substantial buildings for which compensation would be granted while other buildings each of which was less than that value would not be considered substantial buildings but would be treated as merely appendages to agricultural properties. This value of Rs. 20,000/- bas been reduced to Rs. 10,000/- iri r. 65 for those to whom less than four acres was allotted, but this change is subject to _the same limitation •i. e.,. where an individual building worth either Rs. 10,000 in one case or Rs. 20,000/- in the other was left in Pakistan co'mpensation would be payable for that building as such: but where an individual building left in Pakistan was Jess than Rs.·20,000/· or Rs. 10,000/as the case may be, no compensation would be payable for it separately even though more than one such building may have been left behind by the same displaced person. That seems to be the scheme which was evolved under the Act for giving compensation to displaced person. The . general rules for payment of compensation are to be found in Chaptors IV, V and VI of the Rules. Further, r. 44 in Chapter VII provides for allotment of acquired evacuee houses in rural areas in lieu of compensation Rule 47 then provides for payment of compensa- , tion under. Chap. VII subject 'to the provisions of r. 65. It is clear . therefore that the scheme of compensation provided under the Rules is that where a person bas left both agricultural land and rural buildings in Pakistan he was · to be allotted agricultural land and for any rural building~ which he might have left and e_ach of which might be less thari Rs. 10,000/-or Rs. 20,000/- in value he was to get what is provided by r. 57-. But where any one rural building left by him was worth more than Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 10,000/· as the case may be, he would get compensation separately. The argument . tJaerefore o~ b~-lf ef the respand~t w!).icli ~ tion was given to displaced persQns for buildings less tha.n Rs.20,000 or R~. 10,000/-, as the case may be, is not borne out by tho trnles. We have already referred to r. 57 in this oonnection and reading that with r. 65 it seems clear that in view of the inter Dominion agreement, the scheme was that wbero an individual building wa.s worth more than Rs.2 0,000/ or Hs.10,000/· a.a the ca.se may be, compensation would be payable separately under Chapters IV, V

pp. 539–542

.. and VI of the 'Rules. Further, undor Chap. VII acquired evacuee houses in rural areas may be allo· tted in lieu 0f compensation. But if each individual building left by a displaced person was less than Rs.20,000/· or Rs.10,000(· as the case may be, though he may have left more than on11 he would be compensated by allotment of a house. or site with building grant in addition to agricultural land as contemplated in r. 57. The eomrlaint therefore that no compensation has been provided· for a displaced person where each building left by him wa.s less than Rs.20,000/·or Rs, 10,000/· as the case n1ay be, is not correct, though it may be that in the case of each builrling worth lc!lll than Rs.20,000/· or Rs. 10,000/· the compe118ation may not be as in the case of ea.oh building worth more than Rs. 20,000/· or Rs. 10,000/· as the case may be.

p. 542

The problem however raised by the migration from that ie now West Pa.kista.n to India. wa.s so vast that it required all the strength a.nd ingenuity " on behalf of the Government of Punjab a.nd the Government of India to meet it a.nd the various taken steps for that purposo a.re to be found in Chap. I of "Land Settlement· Manual" by Tarlok Singh, which is a. book of undoubted authenticity a.nd value in this respect. It is in that background and with the inter· Dominion agreement Qf March 1949 in view \hat we have \o approach \be inW..pret.Mioo of r.65. It ia clear in that baokground that when r. 65 speaks of .any rural building the assessed value of which is less than Rs. 20,000/ • or. Rs. 10,000/- it· speaks of each building being of that value and does not contemplate to tailing up of.the value ofa number of buildings which a displa· ced person might have left behind and the total value of which might be Rs. 20,000/· or Rs. 10,000/· as the case may be. 'As was pointed by the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court it is not correct to say that a person owning a building ·in a non-. urban area worth less than the minimum mentioned in the rule receives no compensation, and the fact is that every displaced person owning houses or buildings in a rural area has been compensated under r. 57 and the only buildings left out of consideration were those each of which was worth ' Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 10,000/-. Reference in this connection may be made to Chap, IX of the "land settlement Manual" by Tarlok Singh, where this matter has been explained in detail. Therefore r. 57 having provided for compensation for each building worth leSB than Rs. 20,000/. or lts. 10,000/· as the case may be, r. 65 specifically prohibits separate compensation for such buildings. Therefore, when r. 65 speaks of any building the assessed value of which is Rs. 20,000/-or Rs. 10,000/· it refers to each building being less than"that value, as the case may be.

pp. 542–543

So far as the i·espondent is -0oncerned, he would also, if he so desired, have been allotted either a house or a site under r. 57 if he had deoided to 86ttle down in the village in which he had been allotted agricultural land. It seems however that be did not settle in that village and therefore could not get t'1e advantage of r. 57. That was however his ohoioe and be cannot complain that. he is not made it impossible for · an allotment under r. -57 being made to him by not setting downin the viUa~ iii which agricultural ~ was allotted to him. We cannot however give a meaning to r. 65 inconsistent with the scheme which been evolved for meeting this vast problem simply because the respondent (or those like him) did ohoee to settle down in tho village in which he been allotted agricultural land. If he did not do and in consequence he ha.e suffered eomo loee, loee ie of his own choice; and that ie no reason for interpreting r. 65 in such a· way a.e to benefit persons (like the respondent) who by their ohoice did not avail of the benefit which they would have got under r. 57. Reading r. 65 in the bsok· ground in which it came to be prescribed there be no doubt that when it speaks of any rural building the ll.l!Seesed value of which ie Re. 10,000/or Re. 20,000/· a.e the oase may be, it speaks esoh individual buiMing worth that much; it' does not provide for totalling up the value where displaced person may have left morfl than building in West Pakistan. In the circumet.anoee e. 13 of the Gtlneral Cleueee Act would not apply. That section specifically Jay~ down that singular. would include the plural un lees there anything repug-nant in the subject or context. What we have esid above would clearly show considt.ring the subject in this case and the context in which the word "building" hse been used, the building that has to be taken into socount in determining thfl limits in r. 65 and not the ownership of the building. Where the building itself is worth Rs. 20,000/- or Re. 10,000/· or more, se oase may be, the case would be taken out of r. 65. But there is in our opinion no warrant in the text for building that the ownership has to taken into sooouut and if an owner has a number of buil<linge, each leee than the prescribed limit, the value of such buildings can be totalled and compeD1Stion claimed if the total is above -prescribed limit. We are therefore of opinion the view ta.ken by the High Court is incorrect ! s.c.:R.. SUPREME OOtmT RICPORTS this appeal must be allowed. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. The High Court allowed uo costs to the respondent. We think in the circumstances that the parties should bear iheir own costs.

pp. 543–545

AppeJJl allowed. SEWA SINGH

p. 545

"·

p. 545

STATE OF PUNJAB (K. C. DAs J. R. and

p. 545

T. L. JJ.) • Murdtr-N,ature of gm1shot wound-Proximity of ahot--

p. 545

evidence-Oonaideratio•-Witnessu-Evidence.-valu~ oJ-AaaeBBment- Dodor'• evidence -Oroaa·eZtlmination -No challenge -Indian Penal Ooae, 1860 ( 46 of 1860), 302.

p. 545

The appellant was tried and convicted for murder and sentenced to death. Two eye witnesses testified that· he shot and killed "the deceased from a shop while the later was pass· ing on a motor cycle; The doctor who conducted the post· mortem gave evidence that the shot might have been fired from a distance of three or four feet. This evidence was not challenged in cross-examination; On ·appeal to the High Court the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The appeal came up before· the Supreme Court by way or special leave.

p. 545

The main contention on behalf of the appellant was that the characteristic of the wound which would. have shown that the deceased was shot from a distance of few inches and not from the distance stated by the witnesses were not taken into consideration by the High Court. It was contended that if the High Court had considered these factors the credibility of the witnesses would have become doubtful, ·

p. 545

Held, that the nature and features of the fatal wound should ordinarily be taken into consideration in aslCSling the

p. 545