Skip to content


Pahelwan and ors. Vs. the Authorised Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Rajasthan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Petn. Nos. 14 to 19 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Raj106
ActsConstitution of India - Article 133 and 133(1); Administration of Property Act, 1950 - Sections 7(1); Administration of Property (Amendment) Act, 1954 - Sections 7A
AppellantPahelwan and ors.
RespondentThe Authorised Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Rajasthan and anr.
Appellant Advocate Than Chand, Adv.
Respondent Advocate H.G. Thanvi, Adv.
Cases ReferredAmar Singh v. State of Rajasthan. The
Excerpt:
- - it may well be that the result of the enquiry by the assistant custodian is not adverse to the petitioners in which case the likelihood of the decision of this court affecting the property of each of the petitioners at this stage is remote......supreme court, in which identical questions of law are involved. 2. on information received by the assistant custodian, ganaganagar, that the applicants had gone to pakistan, proceedings under the administration of evacuee property act (no. 31 of 1950) were taken against each one of the applicants, and their property was declared evacuee property ex parte. in 1952, the applicants made an application to the assistant custodian to the effect that they had not migrated to pakistan, but had merely left for the neighbouring villages on account of famine. they, therefore, prayed that the ex parte orders passed against them be set aside on proof of their assertion. the assistant custodian rejected these applications in tune 1953, but on appeal their cases were remanded for a fresh decision......
Judgment:

K.L. Bapna, Ag. C.J.

1. These are six applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, in which identical questions of law are involved.

2. On information received by the Assistant Custodian, Ganaganagar, that the applicants had gone to Pakistan, proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (No. 31 of 1950) were taken against each one of the applicants, and their property was declared evacuee property ex parte. In 1952, the applicants made an application to the Assistant Custodian to the effect that they had not migrated to Pakistan, but had merely left for the neighbouring villages on account of famine.

They, therefore, prayed that the ex parte orders passed against them be set aside on proof of their assertion. The Assistant Custodian rejected these applications in Tune 1953, but on appeal their cases were remanded for a fresh decision. Fresh notices were issued by the Assistant Custodian, and after enquiry the lands in the possession of the applicants were declared as evacuee property by order of 29-9-1956.

On appeal, it was held that the notices issued to the applicants were not according to law, and A direction was issued to the Assistant Custodian to dispose of the cases in accordance with law after the issue of proper notice to the applicants. Thereupon, the Assistant Custodian decided to issue noticed to the applicants under Section 7(1) of the said Act. Each one of the petitioners contended that no notice could be issued now under Section 7(1) of the Act in view of the provisions of Section 7A of the Act inserted by the Amendment Act of 1954.

Each one of the petitioners had two courses open to him. He could wait till the decision was finally given after enquiry on facts, and then file en appeal, if the decision was adverse to the petitioner. He could also come to this Court by writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Assistant Custodian to issue notice under Section 7(1) of the Act, if he chose to do so.

The petitioners took recourse to the latter remedy, and filed writ petitions in this Court. The writ petition of Pahelwan was No. 71 of 1957, Allah Bux No. 73 of 1957. Khusia No. 74 of 1957, Jehana No. 76 of 1957, Lukman No. 79 of 1957, and Farida No. 80 of 1957. This Court was of opinion that the case came under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7A of the Act, and the Assistant Custodian had jurisdiction to issue the notice, and to proceed further in the matter. These writ petitions were dismissed by judgment dated 30-4-1958.

3. Each one of the applicants in the aforesaid writ petitions has applied for a certificate that the valuation of the subject-matter in dispute in this Court and on appeal to the Supreme Court is not less than Rs. 20,000/-. In the alternative, it is prayed that the case may be certified to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.

4. As to the second ground, it may at once be said that our attention has not been drawn to any case of any other High Court in which a contrary view has been taken, and the decision involves only interpretation of a provision of a statute. We do not think this case to be a fit one for being certified for appeal to the Supreme Court.

5. As to the first contention, it is urged on behalf of the respondents that in everyone of these cases what was in dispute was not any right to property, but it was a question whether the Assistant Custodian had jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, and this question was incapable of any valuation, and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution,

On behalf of the petitioners it is urged that the valuation of the land in their possession, of which they are likely to be deprived of in case the proceedings are permitted to go on, would be more than Rs. 20,000/- in each case. The basis of valuation of the land as made by the petitioners is disputed by the respondents, but it is unnecessary to record any finding on that question because what has been decided so far is that the Assistant Custodian has jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.

The facts relied by the Department for issue of notice under Section 7 (1) are disputed by the petitioner in each case, and they will be the subject of adjudication by the Assistant Custodian. It is only when the findings are adverse to the petitioner in each case that the land or property held by him would be declared evacuee property.

The decision, which has been given by this Court, does not, therefore, directly or indirectly affect his right to any property. It may well be that the result of the enquiry by the Assistant Custodian is not adverse to the petitioners in which case the likelihood of the decision of this Court affecting the property of each of the petitioners at this stage is remote.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Nahar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, ILR (1955) 5 Raj 321: ((S) AIR 1955 Raj 56). In that case the validity or the Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act was challenged. The judgment against which the leave to appeal was asked for is reported in AIR 1954 Raj 291 (FB), under the heading Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan. The facts were not in dispute, and no enquiry remained to be made either at the time when the case came before this Court or after it. As a result of the decision of this Court, the resumption of the Jagirs was a necessary consequence.

7. We accordingly reject each one of the petitions with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //