The High Court clarifies that the Prime Minister Relief Package compensation for displaced families of POK is governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and not limited by Cabinet Order 578-C of 1954’s restrictions on married daughters. The judgment upholds existing precedent, providing binding authority for future disputes regarding entitlement of married daughters to compensation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/255/2025 of RASHPAL SINGH Vs UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS |
| CNR | JKHC020062092025 |
| Date of Registration | 17-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI), Concurring |
| Court | High Court of Jammu & Kashmir |
| Bench | Division Bench: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on similar compensation entitlement disputes |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the judgment of the learned Single Judge (Writ Court) |
| Type of Law | Succession Law; Welfare Schemes for Displaced Persons |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that Rule 15(B) of Cabinet Order 578-C of 1954 covers only devolution of interest in allotted land, not compensation under the Central Government scheme. Since the current dispute concerns compensation, and the scheme or its clause 5 does not exclude married daughters, succession principles in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, apply. The married daughter is entitled to a share in compensation as a legal heir. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | The court referred to the legal opinion dated 09.07.2024 by the Department of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs, J&K, which reaffirmed entitlement of daughters as per Hindu Succession Act for compensation purposes. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Plain reading of Rule 15(B) of Cabinet Order 578-C of 1954; analysis of scheme clauses; application of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Father of appellant and respondent 4 were real brothers, displaced persons from POK; both obtained civil court decrees as legal heirs of their fathers. Upon application for compensation under the PM Relief Package, respondent 4 claimed 50% share as legal heir; revenue authorities divided compensation equally. Appellant challenged via administrative appeals and writ petition, arguing that married daughters are excluded by Cabinet Order 578-C of 1954; writ petition was dismissed, leading to present intra-court appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh; authorities implementing the PM Relief Package |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with similar welfare scheme/succession disputes |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | Cabinet Order 578-C of 1954 as inapplicable to compensation under the present scheme |
| Follows | Legal opinion by Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs, J&K (09.07.2024) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that compensation under Central Government relief schemes for displaced persons is not governed by Cabinet Order 578-C of 1954.
- Clarifies that succession to such compensation is to be determined as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, making married daughters eligible.
- Distinguishes between devolution of “allotted land” (governed by Cabinet Order) and monetary compensation (governed by succession law).
- The court recognizes opinions rendered by competent government law departments as having persuasive value in statutory interpretation.
- Administrative and writ challenges cannot succeed on the ground that married daughters are excluded from compensation under the relief package.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first reviewed the relevant facts, including the familial relationship between the appellant and respondent 4 and their respective decrees as legal heirs.
- The core issue considered was whether a married daughter, being a legal heir, can claim a share in the compensation for displaced persons under the PM Relief Package.
- The court analyzed Rule 15(B) of Cabinet Order 578-C of 1954 and clarified that it applies only to the devolution of interest in allotted land, not compensation schemes.
- The relevant compensation scheme itself (and Clause 5 thereof) contains no provision excluding married daughters from compensation.
- The Division Bench gave weight to the legal opinion of the Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs, J&K, which explicitly endorsed the entitlement of daughters under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, for compensation purposes.
- Concluding, the court found no illegality in either the administrative division of compensation or the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The compensation should only devolve as per Sub Rule (2) of Rule 15(B) of Cabinet Order No. 578-C, which excludes married daughters.
- The learned Single Judge erred in applying the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to this compensation.
- The civil decree produced by respondent 4 is invalid as it was obtained without impleading all necessary parties.
- The Revenue Authority’s order dividing the compensation was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
Respondent
- Sewa Singh and Kaka Singh, being real brothers, constitute a single displaced family as per Form Alif.
- Respondent 4, as daughter and legal heir, is entitled to compensation as per succession law.
- There is no exclusion of married daughters in the relief scheme provisions.
Factual Background
The dispute concerns entitlement to compensation under the Prime Minister Relief Package for displaced persons from POK, 1947. The appellant and respondent 4 are descendants of real brothers whose names were listed in “Form Alif.” After both fathers passed away, each party obtained civil decrees declaring them legal heirs of their respective fathers. Upon application for compensation, respondent 4 objected to the appellant’s sole claim and sought a 50% share. The Revenue Authority divided the compensation equally. The appellant’s administrative appeals failed, followed by a writ petition challenging the inclusion of respondent 4, which was dismissed, leading to the current appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 15(B) of Cabinet Order 578-C of 1954: This rule addresses the devolution of interest in land allotted to displaced persons. The court interpreted it narrowly, limiting its application strictly to land and not to the issue of compensation.
- Prime Minister Relief Package Scheme and Clause 5: The court found no clause denying compensation to married daughters of displaced persons.
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Succession to compensation under the scheme is determined according to its provisions, ensuring daughters (including married ones) are eligible heirs for such benefits.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting opinions. Both judges concurred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the view that married daughters are entitled to compensation under the PM Relief Package.
Procedural Innovations
- The court gave effect to legal opinions rendered by government departments (Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs, J&K) for interpretation of succession entitlements under a welfare compensation scheme.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and clarifies existing legal position regarding compensation under central relief schemes and succession rights of daughters.