9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and relevant Rules. 2. Impact of the deletion of rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 on existing rights. 3. Determination of substantive rights of displaced persons in pending actions. 4. Application of procedural rules in the settlement of disputes involving displaced persons. Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court of India revolves around a dispute arising under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The primary issue at hand is the impact of the deletion of rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 on the rights of the parties involved in the case. The case involves an allotment of a government-built property to two individuals, with a subsequent dispute over the allocation of shares in the property. The deletion of rule 30, which governed the allocation of properties occupied by multiple persons, led to a disagreement regarding the rightful allottee of the property. The central argument in the appeal was whether the deletion of rule 30, considered a procedural rule by the appellants, affected the substantive rights of the parties involved. The appellants contended that the deletion of the rule merely altered the procedural aspect of the proceedings and should not impact the underlying rights of the parties. However, the Court disagreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that rule 30 conferred a substantive right on displaced persons regarding the payment of compensation and allocation of properties. The Court highlighted that the manner in which compensation is payable forms an integral part of the right to receive compensation, and rule 30 was not merely a procedural mechanism but a substantive provision. The Court further referenced a previous judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, affirming that a displaced person has a substantive right to the determination of their compensation claim in the prescribed manner. The Court held that unless expressly stated, the amendment deleting rule 30 should not retroactively affect existing rights of displaced persons. Therefore, the rights of the parties involved in the case should be governed by the rule in force at the time of the dispute, which was rule 30. The Court concluded that the deletion of rule 30 in 1963 did not impact pending actions and upheld the decision of the Punjab High Court to quash the order made under sec. 33. In summary, the judgment clarifies that the deletion of rule 30 did not alter the substantive rights of displaced persons and emphasizes the importance of adhering to the rules in force at the time of the dispute for the resolution of compensation-related issues. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the Punjab High Court without any order as to costs.
|
