Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Arshadullah Khan and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 1002033 of 1995
Decided On : 23-03-2022
Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 - Section 11 - Principle of res-judicata -Writ of certiorari calling for records to quash judgment and orders - This Court admitted said writ petition on and stayed operation of orders - Respondents were directed not to disturb possession of petitioners from land in question until further order sheet of case would show a very disturbing trend - After obtaining interim order case has been dragged by petitioners for long years before this Court - Every time when case got listed before Court either counsel for petitioners was not present or adjournment was sought on one pretext or other - Looking at adjournments sought by petitioners this Court on when no-one remained present on behalf of petitioners even in revised call directed case to be listed in next cause list peremptorily - Once the proceedings got concluded by judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Major Chandra Bhan Singh vs. Latafat Ullah Khan (supra), any subsequent proceedings on the said issue was barred by principle of res-judicata- Para 70.
Finding of the Court: There is no limitation provided said section - He may exercise on his own motion or on an application made to him in this behalf - Only rider is that Custodian General should not pass an order prejudicial to any other person without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard - It is not case of petitioners that they were not given notice to be heard before passing impugned order - Order itself discloses that they were fully heard and reasonable opportunity was given to them before passing impugned orders - Impugned orders have been passed because of concealment by petitioners who in defiance of judgment of Supreme Court in case of sale certificate issued in their favor in respect of evacuee interest by misleading and concealing material facts.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. This writ petition was filed in the year 1995 praying for a writ of certiorari calling for records to quash judgment and orders dated 18.01.1995 and 24.02.1995 (Annexure Nos. 14 and 17) passed by Additional Judge Small Cause Court-I in SMR No. 21 of 1984.
2. This Court admitted the said writ petition on 27.10.1995 and stayed the operation of the orders dated 18.01.1995 and 24.02.1995. The respondents were directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioners from the land in question until further orders.
3. The order sheet of the case would show a very disturbing trend. After obtaining the interim order, the case has been dragged by the petitioners for 27 long years before this Court. Every time when the case got listed before the Court, either counsel for the petitioners was not present or adjournment was sought on one pretext or the other. Looking at the adjournments sought by the petitioners, this Court on 02.12.2015, when no-one remained present on behalf of the petitioners even in the revised call, directed the case to be listed in the next cause list peremptorily. On many dates when the case was listed peremptorily, adjournments had been sought by the counsel for the petitioners with numerous excuses. Some of the such adjournments sought by the counsels for the petitioners as mentioned in the order sheet are being given hereunder.
4. On 05.10.2016, counsel for the petitioners sought adjournment on the ground of his ill health.
5. On 13.10.2017, none was present for the petitioners to prosecute the case and, therefore, this writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution.
6. A recall application was filed to recall the order dated 13.10.2017 whereby the writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution, and this Court issued notice on the said application vide order dated 08.11.2017. Though the writ petition was not restored on 15.05.2018, counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 3 had expired and a substitution application would be required to be filed. This Court, looking at the numerous adjournments sought by the counsel for the petitioners, granted 3 days time to file substitution application and directed the case to be listed on 21.05.2018 as unlisted.
7. On 22.05.2018, learned counsel for the petitioners again sought adjournment and this Court directed the case to be listed on 24.05.2018.
8. On 24.05.2018 again a request was made for adjournment of the case, the Court directed the case to be listed on the next day i.e. 25.05.2018.
9. On 25.05.2018 again a request was made for adjournment of the case, and the case was directed to be listed on 02.07.2018.
10. On 02.07.2018 again no-one appeared on behalf of the petitioners to press this writ petition, and this Court was of the view that the writ petition had become infructuous by efflux of time, and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. The case was consigned to record. However, it was observed that if the petitioners would think that the matter survived, they would be at liberty to move an application for recall of the order within a month.
11. An application (C.M. Application No. 76960 of 2018) was filed for recalling the order dated 02.07.2018, and on 24.07.2018, this Court directed that the application to be listed with previous papers.
12. On 06.09.2018, learned counsel for the petitioners sought adjournment on the said application on the ground of his ill health, and this Court directed the case to be listed in the next cause list peremptorily.
13. Application No. 76960 of 2018 for recall of the order dated 02.07.2018 was listed before the Court on 22.10.2018. No-one was present to press the application on behalf of the petitioners and, therefore, recall application was dismissed for non prosecution.
14. Another application being C.M. Application No. 139716 of 2018 for recall of the order dated 22.10.2018 was filed on behalf of the petitioners. This Court vide order dated 13.12.2018 gave liberty to the respondents
principle of res-judicata- Once the proceedings got concluded by judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Major Chandra Bhan Singh vs. Latafat Ullah Khan (supra), any subsequent proceedings on th....
The necessity of Custodian's confirmation under Section 40 of the Displaced Persons Act for the validity of sales is essential; without it, property transfers involving evacuee property are void.
Act, 1954 does not stipulate any permission of the Custodian General for disposal, by sale, of evacuee properties. Thus, no permission of the Custodian General was required to dispose of the disputed....
Authority under the Evacuee Interest Act persists post-repeal, ensuring resolution of pending claims amidst administrative neglect.
Compliance with statutory leasing procedures is mandatory, necessitating Custodian General's approval for any land allotments exceeding one year.
The Sanad issued under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 conveys absolute title and cannot be challenged in a civil court. The plaintiff's attempt to seek partition wi....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
