Back
1957 Supreme(Raj) 104
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Bapna & Sharma, JJ.
Custodian Evacuee Property Raj. - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Mohd. Saeed - Respondents
D.B. Civil Reference No. 17 of 1956
Decided On : May 10, 1957
J.K. Gupta, for applicant; K.S. Hajela, A. Ahmad and I. Ahmed, for opposite-party
Headnote:Evacuee Property—Administration of Evacuee Property Act, sec. 22(b)--Scope and applicability—Transfer of assets during period from 14th of August, 1947 to 18th of October, 1949—Subsequent conduct.
HELD : The Administration of Evacuee Property Act amended the provisions of the Ordinance with respects to intending evacuees in certain respect and clause (b) of sec. 22 was newly enacted. A plain reading of that section is to bring under control the property of such persons, who may have acquired Pakistan nationality or intended to acquire it, and of persons who may have transferred a substantial portion of their assets to Pakistan, In the present case, it was admitted by S. that he had made a transfer of Rs. 81,500/- to Pakistan between the period from l4/08/1947 and 18/10/1949. That this is the transfer of a substantial portion of his assets does not admit of any doubt. His plea is that he subsequently spent some money in purchasing movable property or in doing repairs of immovable property. The sub-sequent conduct of a person whose property could be declared evacuee property, has been provided for consideration in proceed-ing under sec. 16 of the Act, but it has no relevance in proceedings under sec. 22 (b) of the Act. (Paras 12,14,15, and 16)
2. The facts of the case are simple and not disputed.
3. Proceedings under sec. 19 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance of 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Ordinance) had been initiated against the respondent Dr. Mohd. Saeed of Jaipur, and by an order of 1st April, 1950 he was declared to be an intending evacuee by the Deputy Custodian. Jaipur. By the same order it was directed that notice be issued to the respondent to show cause as to why he be not declared to be an evacuee under secs. 2(d) (i) and 2(d) (iii) of the Act and as to why his property be not declared to be evacuee property under sec. 22 (b) of the Act.
4. The ground for the issue of notice under sec. 22(b) of the Act was that he had remitted to Pakistan a sum of Rs 84,700/- between the 14th of August, 1947 and 18th of October, 1949 which amount represented a substantial portion of his assets situated in India.
5. Dr. Mohd. Saeed in response to the notice under sec. 22(b) of the Act admitted that he remitted to Pakistan a sum of Rs. 81,500/- between the aforesaid dates, but explained that he had done so in order to meet the marriage expenses of his children, and that out of the aforesaid amount a sum of Rs 17,500/- had been brought back to India, and that after his visit to Pakistan he had returned to India under a permit for permanent settlement and invested a huge sum in his business of practising medicine, purchased a car worth about Rs. 10,000/- in India and effected improvements in his house at Jaipur at some cost. It was pleaded that he was an Indian national and intended to settle in India and as such his property should not be declared as evacuee. He admitted that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was in his current account with the Imperial Bank of Hyderabad (Sind) and that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was in deposit with the Lahore Bank in Pakistan in his name and his aunt jointly.
6. The Deputy Custodian by order of 16th November, 1951, among other things declared the property of Dr. Mohd. Saeed as evacuee property under sec. 22(b) of the Act as it then stood. Dr. Saeed filed an appeal to the District Judge under sec. 25(b) of the Act against the said order (wrongly mentioned in the ground of appeal to be dated 19th November, 1951). The learned District Judge. Jaipur City who was the District Judge authorise to hear appeals, allowed the appeal and set aside the declaration under sec. 22(b) of the Act of the property of Dr. Saeed as an evacuee property. The rest of his order, which relates to another matter, is not relevant for the purposes of this reference.
7. The Custodian of Evacuee Property Rajasthan, moved the Custodian-General in revision under sec. 27(l) of the Act. The matter was heard by the Deputy Custodian-General, who was of opinion that the learned District Judge had committed an error in holding that the property of Dr. Saeed could not be declared evacuee property, and accordingly made this reference by his order dated 28th April, 1956.
8 The view of the learned District Judge was that the remittance of Rs. 81,500/- to Pakistan was remittance of a substantial portion of his assets by Dr. Saeed, but the remittance had been so done prior to promulgation of the Ordinance (Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 promulgated on 18th October, 1949) and could not form the basis of declaration of the property of Dr. Saeed to be an evacuee property. According to the learned District Judge if an Intending evacuee, after his being so declared by the Custodian, does any act as may be prescribed as constituting a preparation for his migrating to Pakistan, then only the consequence of his property being declared to be evacuee property can follow. He also observed that even if at an earlier stage the appellant seemed to have been making p
