LexBEHARI KUNJ SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 337 ~ BEHARI KUNJ SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI A v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1795 of 2000) JULY 25, 2008 B ~_,j [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1955; Ss. 2(c), 8 and 10(1) & (2)/Displaced Persons (Com- c ~ pensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955; r. 92: Evacuee property - Transfer of - Held: Evacuee prop- erty vested in Custodian - Before effecting transfer of such property, prior approval of Custodian-General necessary- Ex- post facto approval of the authority not sufficient - Due pro- D cess to ensure best price of the property by inviting tender not t ,. ~ followed - All previous orders passed by the authority/courts having relevance on the issue have been suppressed - Ap- pellant-transferee is a local person and not a displaced per- son, therefore, he has no right to get the property transferred E in his favour as rightly held by the High Court- Evacuee Prop- erty Act. Words and Phrases: 'Fraud' - Practicing of in the context of Transfer of F Evacuee Property • The property in question originally belonging to one 'A' and on his migration to Pakistan vested in the Custo- dian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The entire property was given in tenancy to 'H' and 'G' by G the Custodian. Later, 'G' has transferred his portion to one -l "" 'M'. On his death, the entire property of four bighas one biswa, on which there was a kothi, garden and appurte- nant land, was auctioned under the provisions of Dis- 337 H 338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. --1 A placed Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act 1955 and it was given to a displaced person, one 'T' and sale certificate thereof was issued in his favour. Against the (= auction, 'H' made an application under r.92 of the Dis- ~~ placed Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, B 1955 before the authority claiming himself to be a tenant in respect of part of the land in question claiming it to be .~~ an agricultural land originally belonging to 'A', the Zamindar and later the custodian; and that only Zamindari rights had vested in the Custodian and f?nly the kothi was '· c auctioned and not the agricultural land. The application was rejected by the authority. In th~ meantime, the Gov- ;:c ernment of India acquired the property. 'H' filed an appeal before Asstt. Settlement Commissioner, which was re- jected by the authority by its order dated 17.10.1960. 'H' D filed a revision application under Section 24 of the Act I-- before Chief Settlement Commissioner, which was re- jected by the Revisional Authority. Representations filed >- '?.- thereagainst by 'H' was rejected by ·the Central Govern- , ment. Writ petition filed by 'H' was dismissed by the High E Court. Appeal filed thereagainst by 'H' was dismissed by the High Court. In the meantime, the State of Uttar Pradesh made a representation before the Central Government under Section 54 of the Act against the order of the Cus- f' todian dt. 27.4.72 by which Zamindari rights over two \ big has ten biswas land were transferred to 'H'. Notices F were issued to 'H' and the other persons. Being aggrieved ,/ with the notice, heirs of 'H' and others filed a Writ Petition. .. On 10.11.1982, 'H' made an application before the Custo- dian, Evacuee Property praying therein for transfer of the land in question in his favour and for execution of sale G deed in favour of one 'G' with whom he had made an agreement to sell the said property on certain consider- ation. The Custodian accepted the prayer, which in turn -4"1 ~- was also approved by the Chief Custodian General and the property was transferred to 'G'. Aggrieved by the trans- ~ H fer of the property, State of Uttar Pradesh filed a revision BEHAR! KUNJ SAHKARI AVAS SAMIT! v. STATE OF 339 U.P. & ORS. ~ application under Section 27 of the Act, which was re- A jected by the Revisional Authority. In the meantime, 'G' transferred part of the property in question to the present appellant. Challenging the same, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed writ petitions, which were allowed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. B ~-~ Appellant contended that the applications were made under Sections 27 and 54 of the Displaced Persons (Com- pensation and Rehabilitation) Act in respect of sale of property owned by 'H'; that the sale was approved by the Assistant Custodia
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.