1972 (10) TMI 133 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, before and after its abrogation.
2. Retrospective effect of the abrogation of Rule 30.
3. Vested rights of displaced persons holding verified claims.
4. Interpretation of amendments and their retrospective application.
5. Jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to transfer property under Rule 30.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Rule 30 Before and After Abrogation:
Summary:
Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, allowed a holder of a verified claim in occupation of an acquired evacuee property to have it transferred to them at the reserve price. This rule was abrogated on August 3, 1963, by the Sixth Amendment of the Rules. The core issue was whether the rights of a claimant should be governed by Rule 30 as it existed on the date of the application or as it existed on the date of the decision by the authorities.

Analysis:
The appellant, Dev Raj, applied for the transfer of a property under Rule 30 before its abrogation. The authorities initially failed to act on his application, and by the time they did, Rule 30 had already been repealed. The learned Single Judge held that the rules as they existed at the time of the decision were applicable, thus dismissing the appellant's claim. However, the Full Bench later referred the question of whether the claimant's rights would be governed by the rule as it existed on the application date or the decision date.

2. Retrospective Effect of the Abrogation of Rule 30:
Summary:
The abrogation of Rule 30 was not intended to have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated. The rule of interpretation generally leans against giving statutes retrospective operation unless clearly intended.

Analysis:
The Full Bench concluded that Rule 30, as it existed on the date of the application, should govern the claimant's rights. They relied on the principle that amendments affecting vested rights should not be given retrospective effect unless explicitly stated. The Supreme Court's ruling in Sardarni Attal Kaur v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was cited, emphasizing that vested rights for the determination and satisfaction of claims should be respected as per the rules existing at the time of the application.

3. Vested Rights of Displaced Persons Holding Verified Claims:
Summary:
Displaced persons holding verified claims have a vested right to have their claims determined and satisfied according to the rules in effect at the time of their application.

Analysis:
The Full Bench recognized that Rule 30 conferred a substantive right on displaced persons to have their claims satisfied by the transfer of property. This right could not be taken away by the subsequent abrogation of the rule unless the abrogation was expressly or implicitly made to have retrospective effect. The appellant, having applied under Rule 30 before its repeal, retained his right to have his claim adjudicated based on the rule as it existed at the time of his application.

4. Interpretation of Amendments and Their Retrospective Application:
Summary:
The amendments to the rules should not impair vested rights unless explicitly stated. The Sixth Amendment did not contain any express provision making the amendments retrospective.

Analysis:
The Full Bench emphasized that Rule 30, as it stood before its abrogation, was not a procedural provision but pertained to the substantive right of displaced persons to have property transferred in satisfaction of their claims. The amendment of Rule 22, which rendered certain properties non-allottable, and the deletion of Rule 30, were not intended to operate retrospectively. The legal principle that statutes affecting substantive rights should not be given retrospective effect was upheld.

5. Jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to Transfer Property Under Rule 30:
Summary:
The Managing Officer has the jurisdiction to transfer property under Rule 30 if the claimant satisfies all the conditions of the rule.

Analysis:
The Full Bench clarified that the use of the word "shall" in Rule 30 indicated that the authorities had no discretion but to transfer the property to the eligible claimant. The appellant, having satisfied the conditions of Rule 30 before its repeal, was entitled to have the property transferred to him. The authorities' failure to act on his application before the rule's abrogation did not negate his right.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that the rights of a claimant with a verified claim should be governed by Rule 30 as it existed on the date of the application for the transfer of property. The subsequent abrogation of the rule did not retrospectively affect the claimant's vested rights. The appellant, Dev Raj, was entitled to have his claim adjudicated based on Rule 30 as it stood before its repeal.