Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 108 of 1967, decided on 29th February 1972.

r. 4 and Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 15‑Rule 4 read with Memo. No. 7223 -Comp.‑Reh.‑59 dated 16‑11‑59‑Issue of duplicate Compensation Book‑Section 15 of Act XXVIII of 1959 read with r. 4 of Dis placed Persons (Application for Compensation) Rules, 1959, imposes a legal obligation upon Settlement Department to issue a duplicate upon proof of bona fide loss of the original‑Issue of a duplicate cannot be refused on ground that "the loss was due to negligence and carelessness on your part"‑ Settlement Depart ment directed to issue a duplicate leaving it open to Settlement Authorities to call upon claimant to furnish an indemnity bond in favour of Chief Settlement Commissioner against any loss suffered by him on account of issuance of a duplicate.

S. Ali Bux & Sons v. Additional Settlement Commissioner and another P L D 1968 Lah. 1227 and Additional Settlement Commissioner v. Messrs S. Ali Bakhsh & Sons 1969 S C M R 330 ref.

Abdul Majid Khan for Petitioner.

Ismail Munshi for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 29th February 1972.

The circumstances in which this petition under Article 98 of the Constitution has arisen, are as follows :‑

2. The petitioner is a displaced person from Muradabad, U. P. India. She alleges to have owned 3 houses in Murad abad which were left behind by her and subsequently declared as evacuee property. She filed a claim here, under the Regis tration of Claim (Displaced Persons) Act III of 1956 and the claim was verified under Schedule I for Rs. 5,490 and Schedule VI for Rs. 686 only. After the verification of the claim, the petitioner applied for the issuance of the Compensation Book. The Compensation Book was prepared in triplicate and one copy thereof was granted to her. She is stated to have left her compensation book with her son, Mr. Anwarullah Khan, who is an Advocate on the rolls of this Court. The Compensation Book is alleged to have been stolen away from the house on 14‑3‑1964 and a report was lodged with the Jamshed Quarters, Police Station on that very day. A public notice was also published In the daily 'Jang' some ten days later. The copies of those documents have been filed on the record. The petitioner then made an application, duly supported by an affidavit to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the grant of a dupli cate copy of the Compensation Book, stating the circumstances in which the compensation book was lost by her and also the fact that no use had been made of the deferred payment. The application is dated 16‑5‑1964. After about 2 years, to be precise on 22‑7‑1966, a reply was received by the petitioner in the following words :‑

"Your request for the issue of a duplicate Compensation Book was considered in the light of the circumstances of the loss of the original as stated by you. It is clear that the loss was due to negligence and carelessness on your part and as such there is no justification for issue of a duplicate set. It is, therefore, regretted that your request cannot be acceded to."

After some further communication on the subject, the instant petition came to be filed.

3. Mr. Abdul Majid Khan, learned counsel for the peti tioner, has referred me to rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Displaced Persons (Application for Compensation) Rules, 1959, sections 11, 12, 15 and 18 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Reha bilitation) Act, 1958, and also to the Memorandum No. 7223 Comp: Reh‑59 dated the 16th November 1959, which appears on page 80 of the Old Manual of Settlement Law and Proce dure, 1968. It is, however, not necessary to examine these, contentions, because these have been dealt with at length in Messrs S. Ali Bux & Sons v. Additional Settlement Commis sioner and another (P L D 1968 Lah. 1227). In the precedent case also the compen sation book had been issued to the claimant which came to be lost in ‑the course of the shifting of the household effects to another premises. A report was lodged with the police and a publication was also made in the press. The petitioner in that case had made an application before the Settlement Authorities which came to be rejected. However, it is to be noted that In that case, it was also stated in the report submitted by the respon dent, that the possibility of the lost compensation book being used by an unauthorised person at far flung stations could not be entirely excluded. It is to be noted that in the instant case the department had taken more than 2 years to send the reply, and even in the report submitted by them, not the faintest appre hension was expressed about its being used any where else or by any body else. It was observed in the aforesaid case that :

"Section 15 of 1958‑Act read with rule 4 of 1959, rules on its proper construction imposes a legal obligation upon the respondents to issue .a duplicate upon the proof of bona fide loss of the original."

Further on it was observed that :

"It was not controverted before us that a claimant has a vested right to receive compensation out of the relevant pool. The right is created by the statute and the compensa tion book is a mere compendious statement to be used as a handy evidence at a glance to enable the Settlement Depart ment to discharge its obligation. In that respect, it is not dissimilar from the "pass‑book" issued to a depositor of a saving Bank account . . . . . ."

The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court, as reported in 1969 S C M R 330.

4. Mr. Ismail Munshi, learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the alleged loss was not bona fide and also the fact that while the petitioner in the report lodged with the police, mentioned about the loss of the compensation book, in the petition she had gone to say that it had been stolen away. I am afraid that is much of a muchness, because at the earlier stage she may not have been in a position to make a categorical statement about the theft, which she could after a thorough check and making assurance doubly sure at a later stage. It is nobody's case that it had been passed on to any body or used by any body. I am afraid there is no substance in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. I will, therefore, accept the petition and direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to issue a duplicate compensation book at their earliest convenience in respect of the registered claim of the petitioner. It will be open to the respondents to require the petitioner to furnish indemnity bond to indemnify the Chief Settlement Commissioner, against any loss suffered by him on account of the issuance of the duplicate. There will be no order as to costs.

K. B. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.