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

2018 Supreme(SC) 1135

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Mahendra Pratap Dubey – Appellant
Versus
Managing Officer, Evacuee Property & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6384 OF 2010
Decided On : 16-11-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
Application, to succeed, should be supported by documents.
Decision in a suit is not binding on a person who is not impleaded in the suit.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 – Section 10(2)(o) r/w section 20, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 – Suit property sold to respondent no 3 in open auction – Filing application for declaration of title – Application accepted by Managing Officer – Appellant claiming through respondent no. 4 who claimed to have purchased the suit property – Appellant and respondent no. 4 failing to produce any official document in support of their claim but challenging jurisdiction of Managing officer to determine sale certificate to respondent no. 3 – Authorities and High Court rightly rejecting the application. (Para 11, 12)

       (b) Administration of justice – Decision in a suit – Not binding on a person who is not impleaded in the suit. (Para 13)

       Facts of the case:

       Respondent no. 3, Mainmum Nissa @ Kumani, W/o Subrati @ Algu filed an application before Assistant Custodian/Managing Officer (Evacuee Property), Board of Revenue claiming that she was occupying the suit property as owner thereof, having purchased the same at a public auction and in furtherance whereof a certificate of sale came to be issued in her favour and that respondent No.4 - Mohd. Sattar @ Mokhan (through whom the appellant claims his right, title and interest in the suit property) was causing obstruction to her possession in the suit property on the basis of some fictitious sale certificate dated 30th September, 1968.

       The application was allowed.

       This decision was upheld by Collector, District Jaunpur, and further by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue.

       Writ petition challenging the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue U.P. has also been rejected.

       Finding of the Court:

       Authorities below and the High court rightly rejected appellant’s application.

       Result: Appeal dismissed with cost.

JUDGMENT

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26th February, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.30158 of 1995, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the decision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow was rejected. The Assistant Custodian/Managing Officer (Evacuee Property), Board of Revenue, Lucknow had allowed the application filed by respondent No.3 - Mainmum Nissa @ Kumani, W/o Subrati @ Algu, R/o Village Singramau, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur, U.P., accepting her claim that she was occupying the suit property as owner thereof, having purchased the same at a public auction and in furtherance whereof a certificate of sale came to be issued in her favour and that respondent No.4 - Mohd. Sattar @ Mokhan (through whom the appellant claims his right, title and interest in the suit property) was causing obstruction to her possession in the suit property on the basis of some fictitious sale certificate dated 30th September, 1968.

2. Be it noted that the statutory authorities and the High Court have concurrently found that Ram Abhilakh (through whom the appellant claims to have acquired title in the suit property), to whom notice was issued by the authority and opportunity was given to produce the official record in his possession to substantiate that he had acquired title in the suit property pursuant to a transfer by the Custodian in favour of Md. Sattar @ Mokhan, failed to do so. He avoided filing any document. Further, there was no record or any entry in the official register to show that any sale certificate was issued in favour of Md. Sattar @ Mokhan by the concerned department.

3. On the other hand, it has been concurrently held that respondent No.3 had produced a certificate of sale dated 7th August, 1965 in her favour issued by the competent authority in reference to an auction conducted on 12th July, 1962, at which she purchased the subject property. Further, there was nothing to discredit the documents and the testimony of respondent No.3 that she had acquired right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of a certificate of sale in her favour. Such finding has been recorded by the first authority vide judgment and order dated 4th May, 1985 and confirmed by the Collector, District Jaunpur, by dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant bearing Case No.8/1984/522 decided on 7th October, 1988 and further upheld by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Lucknow, U.P., being the revisional authority, by dismissing the revision of the appellant bearing Revision No.1(RR) No./1988-89) District Jaunpur, decided on 5th August, 1995. The High Court, therefore, declined to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant vide impugned judgment and order.

4. The moot question agitated by the appellant before the concerned authorities and up till the High Court, was that the Managing Officer, appointed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of a sale certificate issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 10(2)(o) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. This contention, however, did not find favour with either the authorities or the High Court in view of the findings of fact recorded against the appellant. The appellant was neither able to assail the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities before the High Court nor did he produce the original sale certificate dated 30th November, 1968 purportedly issued in favour of respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan), who had transferred the property to one Shri Vishwanath S/o Kukhekahar who in turn transferred the same to Ram Abhilakh S/o Parmananad, R/o Shahganj, District Jaunpur, from w









































































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