P L D 1961 Supreme Court 235 (PLP)

Ghias Muhammad Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Bashir Ahmad Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 22nd February, 1961. CORNELIUS C. J.‑The subject‑matter of the case out of which this petition arises is the landlord's right in certain land abandoned by the petitioners in the State of Kapurthala in East Punjab, which was held by tenants in occupancy rights of a category described in the Revenue Records as dakhilkar qism‑i‑awwal. It is conceded before us by Mr. Ghias Muhammad that the pecuniary advantage derived by the landlords under these tenancies was so slight as to justify the description "infinitesimal" applied to it by the High Court judgment from which leave to appeal is sought. The petitioners claimed compensation for these abandoned rights. In the Rehabilitation Scheme prepared under the m relevant statute, dakhilkars qism‑i‑awwal are placed on a par with occupancy tenants under section 5 (1) (a) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, whose landlords receive nothing more than the land revenue and cesses, and such landlords are not entitled to receive any compensation under the scheme for these abondoned rights. Accordingly, the petitioners were refused compensation in relation to their abandoned lands which had been held by dakhilkars qism i‑awwal. Presumably, compensation was allowed in such cases to the dakhilkars, as if they were owners. The petitioners moved a petition for a writ in the High Court, and when this was rejected by a Single Judge, they moved a Letters Patent Appeal which also was unsuccessful. Against the judgment in the appeal, they now seek leave to appeal. Mr. Ghias Muhammad challenged the validity of the Scheme on the ground of unreasonableness. He contended that it being in the nature of subordinate legislation, its validity could be attacked for lack of reasonableness. He said that though in respect of particular plots the pecuniary advantage per year to the petitioner‑landlords might be small, yet ,in the aggregate, as the areas involved were very large, the sum they stood to lose was about Rs. 40,

000. So far from agreeing that the Scheme is unreasonable in this particular, we consider that it is on the contrary, eminently reasonable. The transfer of rights to the occupancy tenants in these cases seems to stop short of being complete by the meres margin. It is, therefore, entirely in accord with reason that the residuary rights remaining with the landlords should be treated on a par with the landlord's rights under section 5 (1) (a) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. It may be that the petitioners' loss in the aggregate is considerable, but the Scheme is not founded upon any principle of exact compensation, anna for anna. Its overall purpose is undoubtedly to compensate, and to do so out of the available evacuee property in the most equitable and convenient manner to ensure successful rehabilitation of the lakhs of people involved. In such a Scheme it is unreasonable to expect that every splinter benefit, how near soever it might be to vanishing point, should be weighed and accounted for. We must not be understood to be according assent to the proposition that ‑a Rehabilitation Scheme can be challenged for validity on the ground of unreasonableness when we say that the Scheme, in respect of the particular provision applied in the present case, is eminently reasonable, and that the petition fails. It is hereby dismissed. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.