SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
26th October 1960
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.L. KAPUR, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
Azimunnissa and others, Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Properties, District Deoria and others, Respondents.
Petition No. 56 of 1958.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Sr. Advocate (Mr. G. C. Mathur, Advocate, with him), for Petitioners; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, (R. B. Nanak Chand and Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India and Mr. Harnam Singh, Sr. Advocate (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with them), for Respondent No. 4 Mr. J. P. Goyal, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 5 to 10.
Judgment
KAPUR, J. : This is a petition by six persons under Art. 32 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari for calling the records in which certain orders were passed and for the issue of a mandamus directing the respondents to restore the property in dispute. The following pedigree table will assist in understanding the case :
2. The petitioners alleged that the properties in dispute were acquired by Noori Mian and after his death there was some litigation but as a result of a compromise between the members of the family the shares of the contestants were fixed as follows :
(a) Rehmat Bibi, Widow ... ... 0-1-6
(b) Taghma Bibi ... ... ... 0-1-5
(c) Khatoon Bibi ... ... ... 0-1-9
(d) Azimunnissa ... ... ... 0-1-9
(e) Shakrullah ... ... ... 0-5-4
(f) Khuda Baksh ... ... ... 0-4-3
3. On August 28, 1942, Shakru-ullah created a waqf-alal-aulad in favour of his sons and nominated Abdul Razzaq as Mutwali (Trustee). Shukr-ullah died in 1945. In the year 1947, Khatoon Bibi, one of the petitioners, went away to Karachi and the ostensible reason stated by her is that she went to look after the ailing sister of her husband who was in Karachi.
4. On November 22, 1949, a notice was issued to Khatoon Bibi, her manager and servants declaring her to be an evacuee and calling upon her to surrender possession of her property which was described as "Bhatni Noori Chini Mills, zamindari and kashtkari lands". Her husband Abdul Barkat filed objections but it does not appear that any order was passed on those objections. On April 17, 1950, the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the Act, came into force. Another notice was issued to Khatoon Bibi by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Deoria, on July 5, 1950, to show cause why she should not be declared an evacuee and why all her property be not declared evacuee property. It is alleged that the notice did not contain any description of the property and was therefore ineffective. This fact is denied by the respondents. In their affidavit it was stated that the property was fully specified and identified and that the notice of July 5, 1950, was by way of abundant caution; the property of Khatoon Bibi had become evacuee property and had automatically vested in the year 1949. Against this notice also Abdul Barkat filed objections but by an order dated March 7, 1951, these objections were dismissed. The order was as follows :-
"Objections dismissed. Admittedly Bibi Khatoon is an evacuee. The notice is hereby confirmed and the property (sufficiently although not thoroughly) described in the notice is hereby declared to be evacuee property".
No appeal or revision was taken against this order. On January 8, 1953, a notice under S. 8 of the Act was issued against Bashir Ahmad and Nasir Ahmad and by an order dated December 14, 1955, both of them were declared evacuees and their interests in the properties were declared evacuee property. This order by the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) shows that in the notice the properties were described and it was held that both Bashir Ahmad and Nasir Ahmad were evacuees and their interest in the property was evacuee property but as it was composite property the exact shares were left to be determined by the Competent Officer. An appeal was taken by these two evacuees to the Custodian of Evacuee Property, U. P., but it has not yet been decided.
5. Proceedings were then taken by the Competent Officer under Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act (64 of 1951), hereinafter called the Separation Act. Notices were issued under S. 6 of the Separation Act on February 15, 1954 and the persons to whom notices were issued filed separate claims claiming various shares in the property. The Competent Officer by his order of March 20, 1956, declared the shares of the various evacuees and non-evacuees and also held that as the claimants were not prepared to purchase the shares of the evacuees in the property in dispute the only mode
Distinguished : Saghir Ahmad and another, v. State of U. P. and others
referred : M.P. V. Sundararamier and Co. state of Andhra Pradesh
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.