1980 Supreme(All) 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. N. Goyal and S. C. Mathur, JJ.
HUBRAJI - Appellant
Versus
AUTHORISED CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, UTTAR PRADESH BIHAR - Respondents
Writ Petn. 123 Of 1970
Decided On : 01/04/1980

The effect of an order passed under Section 40 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act is that the property in dispute ceased to be evacuee property and could not thereafter become pool property so as to be available for transfer under the provisions of displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act.

Headnote:

DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954 - SECTION 20 - ADMINISTRATION OF EVACUEE PROPERTY ACT, 1950 - SECTION 40 - SALE DEED - CONFIRMATION - EFFECT - VESTING OF PROPERTY - DIVESTMENT - JURISDICTION OF MANAGING OFFICER - AUCTION - VALIDITY - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Assistant Custodian General Cum authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, U. P. and Bihar passed in two revisions, one filed under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (Act No. 44 of 1954) and the other filed under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Act No. 31 of 1950 ). The dispute in the petition relates to certain plots which admittedly originally belonged to khurshed Hasan and Syed Mohd. Mujtaba. These two persons executed sale deeds on 31-10-1947, 12-4-1948 and 15-7-1948 in favour of Beni Ram. father of opposite parties 3 and 4 and Ganga Ram, opposite party No. 2. After execution of these sale deeds the said transferors migrated to Pakistan. On 16-2-1953 the Assistant Custodian issued notice under Section 7 of the administration of Evacuee Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Evacuee Property Act) to khurshed Hasan and Syed Mohammed Mujtaba requiring them to show cause why they should not be declared evacuees under Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2 (d) of the said Act and the plots in dispute be not declared their property. This notice was contested by Beni Ram who pleaded title to the said plots in dispute on the basis of the sale deeds hereinbefore mentioned. Beni Ram did not dispute the migration of Khurshed Hasan and Syed Mohammad Mujtaba. On 24-4-1053 assistant Custodian (Judicial) Faizabad passed order declaring Khurshed Hasan and Syed mohammad Mujtaba (hereinafter referred to as evacuees) evacuees and the plots in dispute were declared as their property. A copy of this order is Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed by ganga Ram on behalf of opposite parties 2 to 4. After passing of this order an application was made by Beni Ram and Ganga Ram under Section 40 of the Act for confirmation of the sale deeds executed by the evacuees. This application was allowed by order dated 24-9-1953. A copy of the order is Annexure-B to the said counter-affidavit. While allowing the application the assistant Custodian (Judicial) held that the sale deeds were for adequate consideration and were, normal inasmuch as the evacuees migrated to Pakistan after almost five years from the date of the execution of the deeds.

Finding of the Court:

1. The property in dispute was not evacuee property which could be acquired under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons Act and transferred under Section 20 thereof. 2. The effect of the order passed under Section 40 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act was that the property in dispute ceased to be evacuee property and could not thereafter become pool property so as to be available for transfer under the provisions of displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 3. The impugned order was revisable by the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the property in dispute was evacuee property which could be acquired under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons Act and transferred under Section 20 thereof? 2. What was the effect of the order passed under Section 40 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act? 3. Whether the impugned order was revisable by the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The term evacuee property has been defined in Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Displaced Persons Act. It provides that evacuee property means any property which has been declared or is deemed to have been declared as evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950). 2. Section 40 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act does not displace any title but only suspends the operation of the transfer for the time being. 3. The impugned order was revisable by the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Act.

Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed.