LexABDUL QADIR versus MANAGING OFFICER CUM ASSIT. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, JAIPUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. ··-' ABDUL QADIR v. MANAGING OFFICER CUM ASSIT. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, JAIPUR & ORS. October 22, 1979 [N. L. UNTWALIA ,O.ND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.] 993 Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)_ Act 1954--S.20A(l) Explanation-Scope of • The appellant purchased a house in July, 194~. Although neither the vendor nor the appellant was an evacuee within the meaning of tho Administration of ~Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the appellant was treated as an .evacuee and the house was declared evacuee· property in 1951. In response to the appe1lant's petition filed in 1953, a certificate was granted by the Government under the unamended provisions of section 16 of the Act. When the appellant asked for restoration· of the house the Assistant Custodian passed an order in 1957 grant- ing restoration. In the meantime since respondent No. 2 had been inducted as a tenant in the house by the Custodian after it was declared evacuee property the app~ant was asked to take symbolic possession of the house allowing the tenant to continue in possession. Section 20A( I) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 provided that where an evacuee had made· an application under section 16 of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Central Government is of opinion A c D that it is not expedient or practicable to restore the whole or any part of th·: E property to the applicant, it shall be lawful for the Central Government to pay to the applicant the value of the property in cash from the compensation pool in lieu of the evacuee property. The Explanation to this section provided that the provisions of this sub--section shall apply, whether or not a certificate for the restoration of the evacuee property had been issued to the applicant under ___.;._ section 16(1) of the 1950 Act. .. The Central Goverbment revised its earlier order dated November 11, 1960 and gave compensation to the appellant under section 20A of the 1954 A.ct. The appellant's writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Custo- dian was dismissed by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : 1. According to section 16 of the 1950 Act, as it stood before October 22, 1956, an application for certificate was to be made to the Central Government. On the issuance of the certificate, restoration order was made by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In the instant case the certificate was issued on October 27, 1956. The High Court was therefore right "in holding that the certificate issued in accordance with the old law was not valid. [995 D-F] 2. The provisions of section .20A(1) have got the over~riding effect by virtue of the Explanation ·appended to it even after a certificate for the restora- 9-743SCI/79 F G H 994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R. A tioa of the evacuee property had been issued to the applicant on October 27, 1956. In spite Of the certificate it was open to the Central Government not to allow restoration. of the house to the appellant and to pay him compensation only. The Central Government has adopted the latter conrse. Respondent No. 2, a displaced person, was inducted as a tenant in the property ~ long time back. The property was sold to him by the Olstodian. In such a situation it was just and proper to refuse restoration of the property to the appellant and to S pay him only compensation. [996 F-H] c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :'Civil Appeal No. 2233 of 1%9. From the Judgment and Order dated 11-3-1968 of the Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition No. 126/62. Sobhagmal lain and S. K. lain for the Appellant. E. C. Agarwala and Girish Chandra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWAL!A, J. This is an appeal by certificate by Shri Abdul D Qadir from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing his Writ Petition. The house in question belonged to one Mohammed Amin Khan. The appellant purchased the house from the said owner on 10-7-1948 for Rs. 12,000. It appears that neither the appellant E F G H nor Mohammed Amin Khan was an evacuee within the meaning of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Evacuee Property Act. But under some mistaken notion pro- bably ihe appellant was treated as an evacuee and the house was declared as an evacuee property on 15-11-1951 in accordance with the Evacuee Property Act. Aft& such declaration the question that the prope
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.