ZAFAR ALI SHAH Vs. ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY JHANSI
LAWS(SC)-1961-4-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 04,1961

ZAFAR ALI SHAH Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY,JHANSI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EBRAHIM ABOOBAKER VS. TEK CHAND DOLWANI [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. ALLAHAWAL [LAWS(DLH)-1972-2-15] [REFERRED = (1962) 1 SCR 749,9]
ZUMARD UL NISA VS. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY [LAWS(DLH)-1977-2-6] [REFERRED]
MOHAMMAD DIN VS. H C ASTHAN [LAWS(ALL)-1973-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DABAR VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH [LAWS(ALL)-2006-9-236] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA RAM BUDHRANI VS. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI DACOITY JHANSI [LAWS(ALL)-2009-5-779] [REFERRED TO]
M PRABHAKAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2000-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY VS. BRIJ KISHORE AGARWALA [LAWS(SC)-1974-10-12] [DISTINGUISHED]
NAWAB JAMSHED ALI KHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-65] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI GENESH FILMS VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2006-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALAKRISHNA TEXTILE MILLS VS. WORKMEN [LAWS(KAR)-1984-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLAKAR B RANE VS. AUTHORISED CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER [LAWS(BOM)-2004-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR SINHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1964-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA AND ORS. VS. BUDHA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-1985-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
HAR SARUP VS. BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P. AT ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1975-2-54] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sarkar, J. - (1.)This is a petition raising a question of violation of the fundamental right to hold property guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. It arises out of an order made under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, declaring two houses to be evacuee property.
(2.)What had happened was that sometime in September 1951, two notices were issued under S. 7 of the Act addressed respectively to Nusrat Ali and Fateh Ali, requiring them to show cause why they should not be declared evacuees and their properties, being the two houses in dispute, to be evacuee property. Neither of these two persons having appeared, a declaration was made by the Custodian on January 10, 1952, under that section that Nusrat Ali and Fateh Ali were evacuees and the houses were evacuee property. Upon such declaration the houses vested in the Custodian under the provision of S. 8 of the Act and he took possession of them. These houses were the property of one Khadim Ali who had never been declared an evacuee and had died on or about October 1, 1950, leaving three sons and five daughters, who thereupon became entitled to them in certain shares. Nusrat Ali and Fateh Ali were two of the sons of Khadim Ali. The petitioners are his other son and two of his daughters. No notice under S. 7 had at any time been issued to them nor were they ever declared to be evacuees. These facts are not in dispute.
(3.)The petitioners contend that they have been wrongly deprived of their rights in the houses by the action of the Custodian. They say that for a long time they had no knowledge of the proceedings taken under the Act in respect of the houses and when they came to know of the order of the Custodian, they took various steps to protect their rights but were unsuccessful. One of such steps appears to have been an appeal preferred by the male petitioner on behalf of all the petitioners to the Custodian-General against the order of January 10, 1952. On this appeal being rejected, they moved this Court by the present petition.


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