Accrued compensation rights under displaced persons rules survived deletion of Rule 30 and remained governed by the earlier regime.

Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, as applied by Rule 43 to government-built property, formed part of the substantive scheme for determining competing compensation claims and was not a mere procedural device. The rule governed allocation where more than one occupant claimed the property, by requiring preference to the person with the highest gross compensation. Its deletion in 1963 was not retrospective and could not be implied so as to disturb rights and proceedings that had already accrued and been acted upon. The claim therefore remained governed by Rule 30 as it stood when the dispute arose, and the earlier-accrued rights were preserved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the deletion of Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 with effect from 13 August 1963 affected the rights of parties whose claim had arisen and been decided earlier, and whether the pending proceeding under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 had to be decided under the amended Rules.

Analysis: The right to compensation under the Act is to be determined in the form and manner prescribed by the Act and the Rules. Rule 30, as applied through Rule 43 to government-built property, governed the manner in which competing claims of more than one occupant were to be resolved by offering the property to the person with the highest gross compensation. The rule was therefore treated as part of the substantive entitlement of a displaced person and not as a mere procedural mechanism. Its deletion in 1963 was not expressed to be retrospective, nor could it be so construed by implication so as to disturb proceedings and rights that had already accrued and been acted upon when the dispute arose and was decided.

Conclusion: The deletion of Rule 30 did not affect the accrued rights of the respondents, and the claim had to be governed by Rule 30 as it stood when the dispute arose; the appeal therefore failed.

---