Back
1962 Supreme(Pat) 82
PATNA HIGH COURT
H.Mahapatra and Tarkeshwar Nath JJ.
Md.Zakiuddin
Versus
District Assistant Custodian Of Evacuee Property, Patna Collectorate
Appeal from Original Decree No. 506 of 1958 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 24, 1962
The Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, provide a complete apparatus for the adjudication of title to evacuee property and bar suits in the Civil Court challenging the finality of orders passed under these Acts.
Headnote:
EVACUEE PROPERTY - ADMINISTRATION OF EVACUEE PROPERTY ACT, 1950 - SECTIONS 7, 24, 28, 46 - DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954 - SECTIONS 12, 27, 36 - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - BAR OF SUIT - FINALITY OF ORDERS - TITLE DISPUTE - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 - DEFECTS - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that orders of the District Assistant Custodian and Deputy Custodian declaring the suit property as evacuee property were illegal and not binding on him. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of his wife in 1933. In 1950, the District Assistant Custodian started a proceeding against the plaintiff's wife under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and declared the property as evacuee property. The plaintiff's appeal against the order was dismissed. The plaintiff filed the present suit in 1957, after the property was acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and sold to defendant No. 4.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of a disputed title about a property declared as evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. 2. The authorities prescribed under the Act were vested with the powers to adjudicate upon questions of disputed title over any property. 3. The Assistant Custodian and the Deputy Custodian, in appeal, did adjudicate upon the question of title in regard to the suit house and came to the conclusion that the owner of the property was an evacuee. 4. The mere absence of any description of the property in the notice under Section 7 of the Act does not affect the jurisdiction of the Assistant Custodian to proceed further to declare any property as evacuee property. 5. The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, is a complete apparatus that provides for the acquisition of evacuee property, powers to transfer the property, appeals, review, and revisions, and bars any suit in the Civil Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of a disputed title about a property declared as evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950? 2. Whether the authorities prescribed under the Act were vested with the powers to adjudicate upon questions of disputed title over any property? 3. Whether the Assistant Custodian and the Deputy Custodian, in appeal, adjudicated upon the question of title in regard to the suit house? 4. Whether the mere absence of any description of the property in the notice under Section 7 of the Act affects the jurisdiction of the Assistant Custodian to proceed further to declare any property as evacuee property? 5. Whether the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, bars a suit in the Civil Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, provides a complete apparatus for the adjudication of title to evacuee property, including provisions for notice, inquiry, evidence, argument, and the form of the final order. Sections 28 and 46 of the Act bar a suit in the Civil Court to challenge the finality of orders passed under Section 7. 2. The authorities prescribed under the Act, including the Assistant Custodian and the Deputy Custodian, are vested with the powers to adjudicate upon questions of disputed title over any property. 3. The Assistant Custodian and the Deputy Custodian, in appeal, did adjudicate upon the question of title in regard to the suit house and came to the conclusion that the owner of the property was an evacuee. 4. The mere absence of any description of the property in the notice under Section 7 of the Act does not affect the jurisdiction of the Assistant Custodian to proceed further to declare any property as evacuee property, as the plaintiff was aware of the property in question and had the opportunity to contest the notice. 5. The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, is a complete apparatus that provides for the acquisition of evacuee property, powers to transfer the property, appeals, review, and revisions, and bars any suit in the Civil Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the District Assistant Custodian and Deputy Custodian declaring the suit property as evacuee property were upheld.
Mahapatra, J.
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was one for declaration that the orders of the District Assistant custodian, Patna dated the 25th May, 1950, and that in appeal of the Deputy Custodian, Patna, dated the 11th July 1950 were illegal, ultra vires, without jurisdiction and not binding upon the plaintiff, and, consequently, the house property described in Schedule A of the plaint was not an evacuee property and it did not vest in the custodians.
2. The plaintiffs case, shortly put, is that while he was a clerk in the Patna Collectorate in 1933, he purchased the house in suit in the name of his wife, Mosst. Bibi Qabulunnissa by a registered sale deed. Though the wife figured as the purchaser in the sale deed, in fact, it was the plaintiff who had supplied the consideration money and who has been in occupation of the house in question all through. He exercised his right of ownership and possession over the house since the date of purchase. The District Assistant Custodian, Patna, started a proceeding against his wife under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, in April, 1950. A notice (Ext. A) was addressed to "Mosst. Quamrunnissa, wife of S. Zakiuddin, a retired Government servant," on the 24th of April 1950, calling upon her to show cause with all material evidence on which she wished to rely why orders should not be passed declaring her to be evacuee and all her property to be evacuee property under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949.
In response to this notice, the plaintiff appeared before the Assistant Custodian and filed an objection petition, in which he pleaded that the property did not belong to his wife, but to himself, and as such it should not be declared as evacuee property. The Assistant Cutodian, however, by his order dated the 25th May 1950, declared the property to be an evacuee property, holding that the house belonged to the wife of the present plaintiff. There was an appeal against that order, at the instance of the plaintiff, but without any success. It is after that that the present suit was filed on the 20th June 1957, against the District Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Patna, and the Custodian of Evacuee Property, State of Bihar, Patna. When it was pointed out in the written statement filed on behalf of the two original defendants that the property had already gone to the possession of one Md. Fakhruddin, minor son of Abdul Sakoor, by way of purchase from the Central Government who had acquired the property under Sec.12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the plaintiff applied, for amendment of the plaint and sought permission of the Court to add the Union of India as defendant No. 3 and Md. Fakhruddin as defendant No. 4. This was allowed. A written statement was filed on behalf of Md. Fakhruddin. The Union Government did not participate in the trial.
3. The main defence against the plaintiffs suit was that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar imposed under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which came into force with effect from the 17th April, 1950. Before this Act came into force, there was the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949. Under Sec. 58 of the Act, that Ordinance was repealed, but the saving clause provided for the validity and continuance of alt acts done under that ordinance.
4. The trial court held that the suit was not maintainable, and on that account, dismissed the plaintiffs suit. While discussing the issue No. 7 (whether the plaintiff is the real owner of the house in suit), the learned Subordinate Judge recorded a finding that it was the plaintiff, and not his wife, who was the real owner of the house in question. In spite of this finding, as he came to the conclusion that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, he dismissed the entire suit. Against that, the plain
