- (1.) The short question for determination in this appeal under clause 10 of the Letter Patent is whether under sub-rules,(3) of rule 73 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the Rules), an allotte fulfilling all the conditions as laid down in the sub-rule(3), is entitled to get the land which has been found to have been allotted in excess at the reserved price fixed by the Department or weather it is entirely discretionary with the Department to allow to purchase such excess land at the reserved price.
(2.) Some land allotted to Ram Singh etc. was found to be in excess and the Chief Settlement Commissioner held that they had no vested right to purchase the excess land. They then filled civil writ no. 772 of 1964 challenging this decision.
(3.) The learned Single Judge, after discussing the provisions of Rule 73 and comparing it with the wording of Rule 25 of the Rules, and relying on Sodhi Harbakhsh Singh v. The Central Government and others, 1962 64 PunLR 629where in a number of cases were discussed and it was held that the word "may" in Rule 25 is equivalent to "shall" in its effect, observed as follows :- "For all practical purpose, therefore, the benefits which accrue to an allottee under Rule 73 of the same nature as those which are intended to be availed of by a displaced claimant under Rule 25 in respect which the application of the petitioners was thrown out by the respondent was that they had absolute discretion in the matter. That respondents impugned in this case (civil Writ 772 of 1964) are, therefore,liable to be set aside on that short ground. Having no discretion in the matter, the Rehabilitation Authorities will have to decide the claim of the petitioners No.1 as the case may be for the transfer of the excess area on payment of its price on merits in accordance with law." The operative part of the order is expresses in the following words:- "For the foregoing reasons, I allow Civil Writ 772 of 1964, and set aside the order of the Managing Officer, Assistant Settlement Commissioner, and the Chief Settlement Commissioner,declining to consider the application of the petitioners for the purchase of the excess land on merits, and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, declining to consider the petitioners the application of the petitioner for purchase of the excess land on merits, and direct that the claim of the petitioners in that respect shall be considered after hearing the petitioner and all other persons interested in the matter, and shall be decided in accordances with law on merits.;