SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(SC) 441

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 
N.L. UNTWALIA AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
Abdul Qadir (Since Decd.) by L. Rs., Appellants
 
Versus
 
The Managing Officer-cum-Asstt. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2233 of 1969
 
Decided on 22-10-1979.
Advocates appeared
 
M/s. Sobhamal Jain and S. K. Jain, Advocates, for Appellant; M/s. E. C. Agarwal and Girish Chandra, Advocates, for Respondents.
* Writ Petn. No. 126 of 1962, D/- 11-s-1968 (Raj).

Advocates:
E.C.AGARWAL, GIRISH CHANDRA, S.K.JAIN, SABHAGMAL JAIN

Headnote:

Evacuee Property Act – Section 16(1) and 16(2) - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitati on) Act, 1954 – Section 20A – Property - Evacuee Property - Restoration of evacuee property - This is an appeal by certificate by one from judgment of the Rajasthan High Court - House in question belonged to one - Appellant purchased the house from the said owner - It appears that neither appellant was an evacuee within meaning of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - But under some mistaken notion probably appellant was treated as an evacuee and house was declared as an evacuee property in accordance with Evacuee Property Act - After such declaration question that property was an evacuee property could not be reopened and became final - Upon that footing the appellant filed an application under Section 16 (1) of the Evacuee Property Act, as section then stood, for grant of a certificate - Central Government granted a certificate under unamended provision of law contained in Section 16 - Pursuant to the above appellant made an application to Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property for restoration of the house under sub-sec. (2) of Section 16 - Asstt. Custodian respondent No.1 passed an order restoring the house to appellant - But before that respondent No. 2 had been inducted as a tenant in the house by Custodian after it was declared as an evacuee property - Appellant was directed to take symbolic possession of house allowing the said tenant to continue in its occupation on receipt of rent from him - Whether or not, a certificate for has been issued to the applicant under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 16 of the Evacuee Property Act as in force before the commencement of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Ordinance, 1956, – Held, it would be noticed that provisions of Section 20A (1) have got the overriding effect by virtue of Explanation appended to it even after a certificate for the restoration of evacuee property had been issued to applicant - In spite of the certificate it was open to the Central Government not to allow restoration of the house to appellant and to pay him compensation only - Central Government has adopted the latter course - Respondent No.2, a displaced person, was induced as a tenant in property long time back - Property was sold to him also by Custodian - In such a situation it was just and proper to refuse restoration of the property to appellant and to pay him compensation only - But court were informed that amount of compensation payable to appellant has been determined at a somewhat low figure being in neighbourhood - Appellant had purchased the house - In that view of the matter court recommend for consideration of Government whether it would be possible for them to enhance the amount of compensation at least to the figure - Matter is finally within their jurisdiction and they may decide it as they think it fit and proper to do - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:—This is an appeal by certificate by Shri Abdul Qadir from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing his Writ Petition. The house in question belonged to one Mohammed Amin Khan. The appellant purchased the house from the said owner on 10-7-1948 for Rs.12,000. It appears that neither the appellant nor Mohammed Amin Khan was an evacuee within the meaning of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Evacuee Property Act. But under some mistaken notion probably the appellant was treated as an evacuee and the house was declared as an evacuee property on 15-11-1951 in accordance with the Evacuee Property Act. After such declaration the question that the property was an evacuee property could not be reopened and became final. Upon that footing the appellant filed an application on 26-9-1953 under Section 16 (1) of the Evacuee Property Act, as the section then stood, for grant of a certificate. On 27-10-1956 the Central Government granted a certificate under the unamended provision of law contained in Section 16. Pursuant to the above the appellant made an application to the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property for restoration of the house under sub-sec. (2) of Section 16. The Asstt. Custodian respondent No.1 passed an order on 18-3-1957 restoring the house to the appellant. But before that Shri Ajjumal, respondent No. 2 had been inducted as a tenant in the house by the Custodian after it was declared as an evacuee property. The appellant was directed to take symbolic possession of the house allowing the said tenant to continue in its occupation on receipt of rent from him.

2. The appellant came to know later that on 11-11-1969 the Central Government passed an order under Section 20A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Displaced Persons Act, whereby it was ordered that in respect of the house in question action be taken in accordance with the said provision of law. On 6-12-1960 the Central Government ordered that it had revised its order dated 11-11-1960 and the petitioner was entitled to compensation only under Section 20A of the Displaced Persons Act. In the Civil Suit filed by the appellant against Ajjumal it transpired that a sale deed had been executed in his favour as he was a displaced person in occupation of the house and the appellant was entitled to compensation only. He, therefore, filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the action of the Assistant Custodian, respondent No. 2 and the Union of India, respondent No. 3.

3. The writ case was contested by all the respondents and it was asserted that Ajjumal being a sitting allottee had to be rehabilitated and the appellant was entitled to compensation only.

4. The High Court has quoted Sec. 16 of the Evacuee Property Act as it stood prior to 22-10-1956 and the section as it came into force after that date. It has rightly pointed out that there was a change of procedure in the two provisions. According to Section 16 as it stood before 22-10-1956 the application for certificate was to be made to the Central Government and the Central Government in its discretion was to issue the certificate. On the issuance of such a certificate after following certain procedure the restoration order had to be made by the Custodian of the Evacuee Property. In the present case a certificate was issued only on 27-10-1956. The High Court is right in holding that the certificate so issued in accordance with the old law was not valid. Attempts were made before the High Court to show that the said certificate was issued pursuant to an order alleged to have been made on 1-10-1956. The High Court was not satisfied about the correctness of this new stand. Nothing could be pointed out to us to persuade us to take a view different from the one taken by the High Court in regard to the question of the invalidity of the certificate issued in favour of the appellant on 27-1










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top