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

2009 Supreme(Del) 416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judges: Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Union of India (UOI) – Appellants
Vs.
Qayyum Khan and Ors. – Respondent
LPA 375/2008
Decided On: 13.04.2009

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant:Maninder Acharya, Adv. for respondent No. 1, Sangeeta Chandra and Deepak Khandaria, Advs. for DDA, Manish Paliwal and Sumit Bansal, Advs. for respondent No. 3

The judgment establishes the principle of equitable restitution under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and Rule 37, emphasizing the court's power to issue appropriate directions for restitution and placing parties in a just position.

Headnote:

Restoration - Evacuee Property - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Section 16, Rule 37 - The judgment discusses the restoration of evacuee properties under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and the application of Rule 37 for restitution. The court emphasizes the delay in processing the restoration application, the innocence of subsequent purchasers, and the equitable principles of restitution.

Fact of the Case:

Chand Khan, the owner of evacuee properties, was wrongly declared an evacuee and his properties were auctioned. His son, the first respondent, sought restoration of the properties. The court found that the restoration orders recognized Chand Khan's right to the properties, but the authorities delayed the process, leading to subsequent sales to innocent purchasers.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that Chand Khan was entitled to restoration/restitution due to the mistaken premise of his status as an evacuee. It held that the delay in approaching the court was justified given the authorities' inaction and directed the Union of India to allot an alternative plot to the first respondent.

Issues: Delay in restoration application, innocence of subsequent purchasers, equitable restitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the delay in processing the restoration application, the innocence of subsequent purchasers, and the equitable principles of restitution. It held that the first respondent's delay in approaching the court was justified given the authorities' inaction.

Final Decision: The appeal filed by Union of India was dismissed, and cross-objections filed by the first respondent were allowed. The Union of India was directed to allot an alternative plot to the first respondent.

JUDGMENT

Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.

1. Chand Khan, father of the first respondent, was the owner of half share measuring 211 square yards falling in Khasra No. 591, Bhogal, Jungpura (hereinafter called .the suit property.). He was also owner of other adjacent properties bearing Khasra Nos. 593 and 594. Chand khan had apparently gone missing or at least was not available for sometime in the wake of post partition riots. Apparently, it was reported that either he was killed during the riots or had migrated to Pakistan. The properties of Chand Khan including the suit property were declared evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 1950 Act.) and they vested in the Custodian. Chand Khan had in fact never migrated to Pakistan; he was alive and working in New Delhi. In 1954 he moved an application for restoration/restitution of the properties. An enquiry report dated 11th October, 1962 confirmed the veracity of Chand Khans claims. A further report was prepared on 27th December, 1963 by the Assistant Custodian recommending issuance of final order for restoration. Even when the process for restoration was on, another wing of the Central Government put the suit property to auction. As a result of this, the suit property was purchased by one Chhida Ram for Rs. 4,768/- in 1965 and a conveyance was executed in his favour on 30th July, 1965. Chhida Ram sold the property to Smt. Kala Wati by virtue of a sale deed dated 11th October, 1965.

2. On 1st August, 1966, the Central Government acting through the Settlement Commissioner passed an order in terms of Section 16 of the 1950 Act for restoration of properties to Chand Khan. The relevant portion of that order reads as follows:-

AND WHEREAS the Central Government is satisfied:

.(i) That the conditions prescribed in the rules made in his behalf have been satisfied;

.(ii) That the evacuee properties described in the schedule are the properties of the applicant and

(iii) that it is just and proper that the said evacuee properties should be restored to applicant;

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by section of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the Central Government hereby declares that applicant to be entitled to the restoration of the evacuee properties described in the schedule and directs that action may be taken in regard to the said properties under Section 20A of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954, by the persons authorized in this behalf subject to the condition that the amount due to the Custodian in respect of the properties or the management thereof shall be paid by the applicant to the Custodian.

SCHEDULE: Half share of lease rights in khasra No. 591 measuring 422 square yards corresponding to plot No. 107 and Municipal No. 4934 and full share of lease rights in Khasra No. 593 and 594 situated in Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi corresponding to plot No. 108 and 109 and Municipal Nos. 4935-36.

Sd/-

A.C. Vaswani

Settlement Commissioner & Ex-Offi: Under Secretary to the Govt. of India.

3. Later, on 4th October, 1971 in supersession of 1966 order apparently in view of the declaration of law by the Supreme Court , the Central Government acting through the Department of Rehabilitation passed the following order:

AND WHEREAS the Central Government is satisfied;

.(i) That the conditions prescribed in the rules made in this behalf have been satisfied:

.(ii) that the evacuee property described in the scheduled is the property of the applicant; and

(iii) that it is just and proper that the said evacuee property should be restored to the applicant;

NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the Central Government hereby directs that the evacuee property described in the Schedule shall be restored to the applicant subject to the following conditions namely:-

.(i) that the amount due to the Custodian in





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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