TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after referred to as the Rules) with effect from August . 13, 1963 made any difference to the rights of the parties concerned in this case. The question arises on the following facts. Shop No. 2 in Tripri township in Patiala which is a government built property was allotted in 1950 to the first respondent Khillu Ram jointly with one Tara Chand and his son by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In 1951 both Tara Chand and his son Left Tripri to settle elsewhere and the second respondent Teju Mal applied for allotment of their share in the shop to him. By his order dated November 11, 1959 the Managing officer, Tripri and Rajpura, held that Teju Mal and Khillu Ram were in possession of the shop as allottees respectively of 2/3 and 1/3 shares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Teju Mal's application under sec. 33 was heard on February 25, 1964. The effect of deletion of rule 30 was that the properties which were in the occupation of more than one person were to be put to sale. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India who heard the application under sec. 33 held that the case should be governed by the Rules as amended in 1963 excluding rule 30, and accordingly by his order dated February 26, 1964 he set aside the order allotting the shop to the first respondent Khillu Ram and directed the property in question to be put to sale. The first respondent filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court for quashing the order passed under sec. 33. The Punjab High Court held that the subsequent deletion of rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of compensation by transfer of government built property says that the pro visions of rules 25 to 34 shall, so far as may be, apply to the transfer of any Government built property or Government plot under this Chapter . Rule 30 prescribes that where the property is in the occupation of more persons than one, it shall be offered to the person whose gross compensation is the highest. Clearly rule 30 deals not with the form of procedure but with a substantive right conferred by the Act on displaced persons. Mr. Sanghi described this rule as only a mode or manner of payment of compensation. This may be so, but the form and manner in which compensation is payable is also part of the right to get compensation. Rule 30 is not an instrume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
