S. KARAM SINGH Vs. THE CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY
LAWS(P&H)-1950-5-15
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 26,1950

S. Karam Singh Appellant
VERSUS
The Custodian Of Evacuee Property Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is a petition by Karam Singh Sobti under Article 226, Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ of certiorari or a writ of prohibition against the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi.
(2.) THE Petitioner is in occupation of a portion of a house No. 10 Curzon Road, New Delhi. The Respondent, namely, the Custodian, is taking steps to eject him from this house and the prayer in the petition is that the Respondent be prohibited from evicting him.
(3.) THE circumstance which have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: Sometime in October 1947 (the exact date has not been stated and, in any event, is not relevant) the Petitioner occupied a portion of the bungalow described as 10 Curzon Road, New Delhi. It appears that his possession was recognised by the Custodian of Evacuee Property although no formal order allotting these promises to the Petitioner appears to have been passed. There were two other persons in occupation of portions of the same house. In August 1948 an allotment of a portion of this house was made in favor of Dr. Dewan Chand Aggarwal, a Physician and Radiologist, who belonged to Lahore and had applied for residential accommodation in New Delhi Dr. Dewan Chand Aggarwal was a well known Radiologist and his claim was supported not only by the Director General of Health Services of India but also by some Ministers of the Central Government. It may be mentioned here that there was nothing irregular or undesirable about the support secured by Dr. Dewan Chand Aggarwal as allotment in New Delhi was to be made according to certain rules and considerations and one of these considerations was that preference was to be given to eminent doctors, professional gentlemen and technicians. On 17.11.1947 the various occupants of 10 -Curzon Road were called by the Custodian so that the accommodation allotted to Dr. Dewan Chand Aggarwal might be made available. According to the orders of the Custodian, Dr. Dewan Chand Aggarwal was to have six rooms in this house. He succeeded in getting possession of four rooms. Three of these rooms were originally in possession of one Mr. Vasudeva and one room was taken from the Petitioner. Therefore, the position now is that Dr. Dewan Chand Aggarwal has four rooms, the Petitioner two and the remaining three rooms are in possession of a their occupant. In order to provide the remaining two rooms to Dr. Dewan Chand Aggarwal the Custodian proposed giving alternative accommodation to the Petitioner elsewhere The Petitioner however, did not agree and refused to move out of the house. He declined to accept the other accommodation offered by the Custodian presumably on the ground that this accommodation was not suitable The Petitioner brought a suit against the Custodian after serving him with a notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure This suit was, however dismissed on 9 -3 -1850 on the ground that civil Courts had no jurisdiction to deal with the matters which came within the competence of the Custodian. The Custodian had in the meantime posted a surrender notice on the premises occupied by the Petitioner on 20 -12 -1949. The execution of this notice was stayed by the civil Court, but as soon as the suit was dismissed the Custodian was at liberty to event the Petitioner and take possession of the premises. After the dismissal of the suit the Petitioner put in the present petition on 3 -4 -1950. The Petitioner's case is that the Custodian has not complied with the requirements of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. XXVII(27) of 1949), and inasmuch as the functions of the Custodian are of a judicial or at any rate quasi judicial nature this Court has power to interfere under the provisions of Article 226, Constitution of India.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.