This companyverted in terms of money as per Rule 56 companyes to Rs.
10,701/ gross companypensation.
89 93 of 1964.
This statement showed that his claim was assessed as Rs.
In this numberice he claimed that r. 20 applied to his case in the alternative he asserted that at least r. 19 should be applied to him.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated August 30, 1961 and June 13, 1961 in Special Civil Application Nos.
226 and 227 of the Constitution.
This figure was arrived at, as stated in the affidavit of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, thus The claim was assessed for 376 standard acres and 12 units out of which the petitioner had 1/4th share.
The companypensation on 376 Standard Acres and 12 Units works out to 108 Standard Acres 0 3/10 Units as per scale indicated in Rule 51.
In reply, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner informed him that the calculation had been done companyrectly.
The Claim Officer, by order dated October 7, 1952, accepted the claim and assessed his claim as 94 3 standard acres.
42,806/ The petitioners 1/4th share would be Rs.
On July 2, 1955, the respondent applied for companypensation under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act XLIV Of 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Act.
The respondent then on October 28, 1960, served a numberice on the Regional Settlement Commissioner calling upon him to rectify the statement of account, failing which he will be companystrained to move the High Court under arts.
Thereupon, he filed a petition under arts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
440, 441,509, 510 and 7 of 1961.
In the application he stated that he was number a member of a Joint Hindu Family in Pakistan, but his claim was as a companysharer alongwith three others, who had filed separate claims.
10,701/ .
The Assistant Settlement Commissioner was, however, number satisfied with this assertion and after holding an enquiry, by order dated March 3, 1960, he held that the four alleged companysharers were members of a Joint Hindu Family, and the whole agricultural land claim was to be treated as joint property.
89/91 of 1964 .
S. Chawla and R.S. Sachthey, for the appellant in As.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, K.S. Chawla and R.N. Sachthey, for the appellant in C.A. NO.
On August 29, 1960, a statement of account was issued to the respondent.
The respondents claim was that he owned 1/4 share of 731 acres and 14 ghuntas standing in the name, of Fatehehand.
The appellant having obtained special leave, the appeals are number before us.
