The acquisition of evacuee property under section 12 of the Displaced Persons Act extinguished all rights and interests in the property, including tenancy rights, and the properties vested in the Central Government absolutely free from all encumbrances.

Headnote:
DISPLACED PERSONS ACT - SECTION 12 - ACQUISITION OF EVACUEE PROPERTY - EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHTS AND INTERESTS - TENANCY RIGHTS - EFFECT ON - ADMINISTRATION OF EVACUEE PROPERTY ACT, 1950 - SECTION 7 (1) - DECLARATION OF EVACUEE PROPERTY - EFFECT ON TENANCY RIGHTS - TENANCY ACT, 1958 - APPLICABILITY TO EVACUEE PROPERTY - DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954 - SECTION 19 - CANCELLATION OF ALLOTMENT OR LEASE - PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, tenants of fields owned by a firm, one of whose partners migrated to Pakistan in 1948, challenged notices and orders directing them to hand over possession of the fields to displaced persons allotted the fields under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The Custodian of Evacuee Properties had declared the fields as evacuee property under section 7 (1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and the Competent Officer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, had assigned the fields to the Custodian. The petitioners claimed that they had become statutory owners of the fields under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.
Finding of the Court:

1. The non-service of notice on the petitioners before declaring the property as evacuee property under section 7 (1) of the Administration Act did not invalidate the declaration or subsequent proceedings, as the petitioners were tenants and had no claim to ownership at that time. 2. The petitioners did not become statutory owners of the fields under the Tenancy Act, as the provisions of the Administration Act and the Displaced Persons Act overrode the general law and tenancy laws. 3. The properties vested in the Custodian free from all encumbrances under section 11 of the Separation Act and were acquired under the Displaced Persons Act, extinguishing the petitioners' rights as lessees. 4. The petitioners' occupation as lessees constituted an encumbrance within the meaning of section 12 (2) of the Displaced Persons Act, and the properties vested in the Central Government absolutely free from all encumbrances, including the rights of the petitioners therein. 5. However, the managing officer could cancel the allotment or terminate the lease under section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, after following the prescribed procedure.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-service of notice on the petitioners before declaring the property as evacuee property under section 7 (1) of the Administration Act invalidated the declaration and subsequent proceedings. 2. Whether the petitioners became statutory owners of the fields under the Tenancy Act. 3. Whether the properties vested in the Custodian free from all encumbrances under section 11 of the Separation Act and were acquired under the Displaced Persons Act, extinguishing the petitioners' rights as lessees. 4. Whether the petitioners' occupation as lessees constituted an encumbrance within the meaning of section 12 (2) of the Displaced Persons Act. 5. Whether the managing officer could cancel the allotment or terminate the lease under section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Custodian is not expected to hold a general enquiry of persons interested in the alleged evacuee property, and the non-service of notice on the petitioners, who were tenants with no claim to ownership, did not affect the validity of the declaration under section 7 (1) of the Administration Act. 2. The provisions of the Administration Act and the Displaced Persons Act overrode the general law and tenancy laws, and the petitioners did not become statutory owners of the fields under the Tenancy Act. 3. The properties vested in the Custodian free from all encumbrances under section 11 of the Separation Act and were acquired under the Displaced Persons Act, extinguishing the petitioners' rights as lessees. 4. The petitioners' occupation as lessees constituted an encumbrance within the meaning of section 12 (2) of the Displaced Persons Act, and the properties vested in the Central Government absolutely free from all encumbrances, including the rights of the petitioners therein. 5. However, the managing officer could cancel the allotment or terminate the lease under section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, after following the prescribed procedure.
Final Decision: The rules in all the special civil applications were discharged, except that the rule in Special Civil Application No. 373 of 1970 was made absolute in respect of field Survey No.5 /2 of Borgaon Manju only, as the learned Assistant Government Pleader had admitted that it was not an evacuee property.

JUDGMENT

KAMBLI J.- These petitions challenge the notices and orders made by the respondents, namely, the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Properties and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola (hereinafter referred to as S. D. O. Akola), and Tahsildar, Akola, Taluq and District Akola. These respondents have directed the petitioners to hand over the possession of the fields in their possession to certain displaced persons on the ground that the fields have been allotted to the latter under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabiliation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Displaced Persons Act).

2. The lands in these special civil applications were originally owned by one Firm known as "Moula Dina Ayub Firm, Akola". A partner of this firm by name Mohammad Hasham Abdulla migrated to Pakistan in or about 1948. A declaration was made by Deputy Custodian Akola on 21-6.1951, in respect of 1/4th share of Mohammad Hasham in the firm properties under section 7 (1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Administration Act). The non-evacuee partners of the firm, it appears, had at one stage taken the plea that they were the purchasers of the share of the evacuee (Mohammad Hasham) and had applied to the Custodian for confirmation of the alleged purchase in their favour under section 40 of the Administration Act. Having failed in that proceeding they filed Special Civil Application No. 135 of 1959 in this Court. The same was dismissed on 20-1-1960.

3. It appears that the Competent Officer under the provisions of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Separation Act, 1951) separated the evacuee interest in the composite property under section 11 of the Act and by his order, dated 18-4-1969, assigned agricultural lands measuring about 689.28 acres comprising of 56 survey numbers situated in various villages of Taluq Balapur and Akola to the Custodian. It is claimed for the respondents that the properties which vested in the Custodian eventually stood acquired under section 12 of the Displaced Persons Act and the Managing Officer under that Act has allotted the properties to various displaced persons. Notices were, therefore, issued to the persons in possession of these fields like the petitioners to deliver vacant possession of the lands in question to the displaced persons. It is these notices and orders that have been challenged in these special civil applications. As they raise common questions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The petitioners claim that they were the tenants of the fields in dispute since before 1947 and under the provisions of The Berar Regulation of Leases Act, 1951, they acquired a status of protected lessees. They further claim that there was a partition between the members of the firm on 16-5-1956 and they continued to be the tenants of the non-evacuee partners to whom these fields were allotted in the said partition. The petitioners also claimed that they have become the statutory owners of the field concerned under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). The learned Counsel for the petitioners raised the following points ;-

1. No notice was given to the petitioners by the Custodian before declaring the property as the evacuee property under section 7 (1) of the Administration Act. The Custodian, therefore, had no jurisdiction to declare the property as evacuee property.

2. The petitioners were the tenants of the fields in question and by virtue of the provisions of sections 41 and 46 of the Tenancy Act they had become the statutory owners of the fields from 1-4-1961.

3. As the petitioners had become the statutory owners of the fields in question by virtue of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the orders directing them to deliver possession of the fields to the allottees under Displaced Persons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document