[Citation : 2011(3) RLW 2093 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
Shankara Co-op Housing Society Vs. M. Prabhakar (Dattu, J.)
HON'BLE D.K. JAIN, J.
HON'BLE H. L. DATTU, J.
Shankara Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
Versus
M. Prabhakar & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 4099 with 4100 of 2000, decided on 05.05.2011
¼d½ fu"ØkUr lEifr iz'kklu vf/kfu;e] 1950 & /kkjk 7 ,oa foLFkkfir tu ¼izfrdj ,oa iquokZl½ vf/kfu;e] 1954] /kkjk 12 & mi vfHkj{kd }kjk vf/k lwpuk tkjh dh xbZ ,oa dysDVj us fookfnr lEifr dks fu"ØkUr lEifr ds :i esa ?kks"k.kk dh & dsUnz ljdkj us foHkktu ds le; foLFkkfir gq, yksxksa ds iquokZl gsrq ;g ^^fookfnr Hkwfe** vftZr dh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & 1950 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 ds rgr vf/klwpuk dkuwuu oS/k gS] foLFkkfir tu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 ds rgr dsUnz ljdkj }kjk vftZr fu"ØkUr lEifr fu"ØkUr ugha jg tkrh vkSj dsUnz ljdkj dh lEifr gks tkrh gSA ¼in la-111½
(b) Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Sec. 7 and Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, Sec. 24 — Powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner — Held — The Chief Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the order passed by the Collector- cum-Deputy Custodian under the Evacuee Property Act. (Para 111)
Appeals allowed.
¼[k½ fu"ØkUr lEifr iz'kklu vf/kfu;e] 1950] /kkjk 7( foLFkkfir tu ¼izfrdj ,oa iquokZl½ vf/kfu;e] 1954] /kkjk 24 & eq[; Hkw izcU/k deh'kuj dh 'kfDr;ka & fu"ØkUr lEifr vf/kfu;e ds rgr dysDVj ,oa mi vfHkj{kd }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dks iqujhf{kr djus dh eq[; Hkw-izcU/k deh'kuj dh vf/kdkfjrk ughaA ¼in la-111½
vihysa Lohdkj dhA
2. In these civil appeals, we are required to consider essentially the erstwhile legislations with regard to the administration of property left behind in India by evacuees migrated to Pakistan during partition and the compensatory redistribution of the same amongst those persons who had migrated from Pakistan, leaving behind their property, at the time of partition.
3. The subject matter are the lands in Survey Nos. 9, 11, 47, 140, 141, 142, 143, 151, 152, 153, 676 and 677, admeasuring about 90.08 acres, situated at Khapra Village, in the erstwhile Medchal Taluk (now Vallabhnagar Taluk) of the Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the disputed lands’).
4. In this batch of three civil appeals, the appellant is the subsequent purchaser of the property in dispute from the allottees under the provisions of The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Displaced Persons Act”). It assails the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 17722 of 1990 dated 27.04.2000. The State Government has also filed Special Leave Petition (c) No. 6964 of 2001 under Article 136 of the Constitution, in defense of the notification which was struck down by the impugned judgment. Since the facts and questions of law raised before us are the same in all these civil appeals, we will take up C.A. No. 4099 of 2000, in the case of Shankara Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. as the lead case for the purpose of narrating the facts leading upto the impugned judgment.
5. The facts in extenso require to be noticed. They are:- The disputed lands originally belonged to one Mandal Bucham, whose legal representatives are respondents herein. Shri Mandal Bucham had borrowed paper currency from late Rahim Baksh Khan and since he failed to discharge the amount due, late Rahim Baksh Khan had filed a civil suit against Mandal Bucham before the District and Sessions Judge at Hyderabad District. It appears that the Court had passed a judgment and decree in favour of late Rahim Baksh Khan. In the execution proceedings of the decree, it is alleged that late Rahim Baksh Khan had purchased the disputed lands belonging to Mandal Bucham in an auction under the supervision of the Court. Rahim Baksh Khan expired in the year 1940 and later on, it appears, his legal representatives had migrated to Pakistan after partition of India.
6. It is averred that the Deputy Custodian and Collector, Hyderabad District, had issued notice dated 11.01.1951, to the legal heirs of late Rahim Baksh Khan, namely Mr. Rafi Mohammed Khan and Mr. Shafi Mohammed Khan, under sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Evacuee Property Act”) inter alia stating that the “disputed lands” belonged to late Rahim Baksh Khan and they have migrated to Pakistan and they are evacuee and, therefore, he would hold an enquiry in the matter on 27.01.1951 and any person having any share or interest in the above “disputed lands” are directed to participate in the proceedings with necessary documents in support of their claim. It appears that general notices were also published in the village in which the said lands were situated on 26.01.1951. Notice was also given to the ancestors of the contesting respondents on 15.02.1951. It is stated that neither the contesting respondents nor anybody else had filed any objection to the notice issued under Section 7(1) of the Evacuee Property Act.
7. After conducting a detailed enquiry in respect to the claim of ownership of the said property, the Deputy Custodian and Collector issued a Notification No.55, in NO CE/4064 to 4080 dated 11.12.1952, declaring the disputed property in issue as an Evacuee Property under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act. This notification was subsequently published in the H
S.S. Balu & Anr. vs. State of Kerala & Ors. ((2009) 2 SCC 479) 28
New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh & Ors. ((2007) 9 SCC 278) 28
K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty & Anr. vs. State of Mysore & Anr. ((1967) 2 SCR 70) 28
Thakore Sobhey Singh vs. Thakur Jai Singh & Ors. ((1968) 2 SCR 848) 28
Mohan lal Goenka vs. Beney Krishan Mukher Jee & Ors. ((1953) SCR 377) 28
Surya Dev Rai vs. Ramchander Rai & Ors. ((2003) 6 SCC 675 = RLW 2003(4) SC 523) 29
Ranjeet Singh vs. Ravi Prakash ((2004) 3 SCC 682) 29
Major Gopal Singh & Ors. vs. Custodian Evacuee Property ((1962) 1 SCR 328) 30
Defedar Niranjan Singh & Anr. vs. Custodian Evacuee Property & Anr. ((1962) 1 SCR 214) 30
Moon Mills Ltd. vs. Industrial Courts (AIR 1967 SC 1450) 46
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Balwant Regular Motor Service (AIR 1969 SC 329) 46
Amrit Lal Berry vs. CCE ((1975) 4 SCC 714) 47
State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar ((1995) 4 SCC 683) 48
Shiv Dass vs. Union of India ((2007) 9 SCC 274) 49
State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors. ((1986) 4 SCC 566) 51
M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd. vs. District Board
Shakur Basti Shamshan Bhumi Sudhar Samiti vs. Lt. Governor
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Gopal Krishna Sengupta & Ors. ((2003) 11 SCC 210) 67
Food Corporation of India vs. S.N. Nagarkar ((2002) 2 SCC 475) 68
Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Sunder Lal Jain & Anr. ((2008) 2 SCC 280) 69
India Household and Healthcare Ltd. vs. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. ((2007) 5 SCC 510) 70
Daya Rao vs. State of U.P. ((1962) 1 SCR 574) 76
Hosunak Singh vs. Union of India ((1979) 3 SCC 135) 76
State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors. ((1967) 2 SCR 625) 79
Smt. Gunwant Kaur & Ors. vs. Municipal Committee
Om Prakash vs. State of Haryana & Ors. ((1971) 3 SCC 792) 79
Custodian of Evacuee Property Punjab & Ors. vs. Jafran Begum ((1967) 3 SCR 736) 89
Dafedar Niranjan Singh & Anr. vs. Custodian
Dr. Zafar Ali Shah & Ors. vs. The Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property ((1962) 1 SCR 749) 98
Ebrahim Aboobaker vs. Tek Chand Dolwani ((1953) SCR 691) 99
Nasir Ahmed vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property
Haji Siddik Haji Umar & Ors. vs. Union of India ((1983) 1 SCC 408) 106
Shakur Basti Shamshan Bhumi Sudhar Samiti vs. Lt. Governor
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.