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

1980 Supreme(Online)(All) 17

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Alok Mathur, J
Hubraji Petitioner v. Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner U.P. Bihar
Writ Petition No. 1127 of 1972



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Unknown
For the Respondents: Sri S.D. Misra

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.

Headnote:(A) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Sections 24, 27, and 40 - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - Section 8 - Challenge to auction - Petitioner acquired property through auction under Rehabilitation Act, which was later contested on grounds of title and jurisdiction, emphasizing the status of evacuee property and necessity of Custodian's confirmation for validity of transfers. (Paras 1-26)

(B) Jurisdiction in property transfers - The requirement for confirmation under Section 40 is crucial for ensuring effective titles in property claimed as evacuee. (Paras 11-12)

(C) Powers of authorities - The court affirms that the Custodian must assess the legality and fairness of transferred properties before affirming them as pool properties, thus preventing misappropriation. (Paras 10-26)

Facts of the case:
Petition against an order declaring property as evacuee, which was auctioned to the petitioner without valid confirmation from Custodian, prompting a challenge by the original owners' successors. The original owners migrated and executed sales prior to becoming evacuees.

Findings of Court:
The court found the auction invalid due to the lack of proper title and confirmation; therefore, the sale certificate issued in favor of the petitioner lacks jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the property was properly classified as evacuee property and the implications of custodial confirmation of title transfers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a Custodian's confirmation under Section 40 is necessary for a property sale to have legal effect, asserting that unauthorized sales are void.

Result: Writ petition dismissed; sale certificate invalidated.

Table of Content
1. overview of property ownership and legal proceedings (Para 1)
2. details on auction and contested rights (Para 2)
3. arguments pertaining to the competence of revisions (Para 3 , 4)
4. analysis of evacuee property definitions and implications (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. court's determination on ownership status (Para 12)
6. assessment of arguments regarding competent jurisdiction (Para 13 , 14)
7. evaluation and responses to procedural arguments (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
8. clarification of procedures for contesting auction validity (Para 18 , 19)
9. discussion of constitutional rights related to property (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
10. the role of past judgements in shaping the current case (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
11. final decision on the writ petition (Para 27)

1. This petition is directed against an order passed by the Assistant Custodian General Cum Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, U.P. and Bihar passed in two revisions, one filed under S.24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (Act No. 44 of 195-11 and the other filed under S.27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act , 1950 (Act No. 31 of 1950). The petition has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated. 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 deed 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 16-3-1953 the Assistant Custodian issued notice under Section of the (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 S.2(d) of the said Act and the plots in dispute be not declared their property. The 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 Khurshid Hasan and Syed Mohammad Mujtaba. On 24-4-1953 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 After passing of this order an application was made by Beni Ram and Ganga Ram under S.40 of the Act for confirmation of the sate 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.

2. Thereafter the plots in dispute were dealt with by the Managing Officer under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rehabilitation Act) and he put the same to public auction on 2-11-1968. At this public auction the petitioner's bid was accepted and accordingly the auction was knocked down in her favour. Sale certificate was issued to the petitioner on 15-11-1968. In May 1969 Ganga Ram and the heirs of Beni Ram filed the revisions hereinbefore referred to. A copy of the revision petition is Annexure - 1 to writ petition. Through this revision petition opposite parties 2 to 4 asserted that in the view of the order of confirmation passed on 24-9-1950 the property ceased to be evacuee property and it could not be sold by the Managing Officer. The auction in favour of the petitioner was alleged to be collusive. On this Basis opposite parties 2 to 4 as




























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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