ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY AND OTHERS Vs. ABDUL HASAN AND OTHERS
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property And Others
Abdul Hasan And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
V.D.Tulzapurkar, J. -
(1.) There is no substance in the second appeal which has been preferred by the Assistant Custodian Evacuee property against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in S.A. No. 1822 of 1963 dated 3rd September, 1969.
(2.) The High Court in second appeal decreed the plaintiffs' suit, inter' alia, on the short point that proceedings for declaring any property to be evacuee property could not be undertaken on and after 7th May, 1954 under section 7-A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and restrained the authorities from interfering with plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit house and from realising any rent from them in respect thereof. Since we are in agreement with the High Court on this point it is unnecessary to go into detailed facts or the other points raised before the High Court. On this point a few facts may be stated. It appears that two notices were issued one on 18th March, 1950 and the other on 5th January, 1952 to different parties interested in the suit house under section 7 and whereas in proceedings under the second notice 7/16th share was declared to be the evacuee property the first notice was discharged. The decision declaring 7/16th shale to be evacuee property was carried in revision but interview of conflicting orders that had been passed the Additional Custodian suo moto set aside both the orders that had been passed in the two proceedings, and directed a fresh consolidated proceeding to be taken. It was thereafter that on 22nd July, 1954 a fresh notice under section 7 was issued and in the proceeding that followed certain share of the property was declared as evacuee property on 10th January, 1956. The High Court has taken the view that proceedings which were initiated under section 7 under notice dated 22nd July, 1954 were fresh proceedings initiated under the Act, the earlier orders having been quashed altogether and according to the High Court section 7-A was applicable and the order dated 10th January, 1956 declaring certain share in the property to he evacuee property was illegal and invalid. On the quashing of the earlier orders nothing was pending so as to attract the proviso to section 7-A. We are satisfied that the High Court was right in the view which it took and the appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.