CHANDRA BHAN SINGH versus LATAFAT ULLAH KHAN & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 891 · Decided: 19-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CHANDRA BHAN SINGH 
v. 
LATAFAT ULLAH KHAN & ORS. 
September 19, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J 
Evacuee· Interest (Separation) Act, 1951-S. 18-No provision in the Ac/ for 
review of the order passed by Competent Officer--Competent Officer-If could 
_-
review his own order. 
r 
., 
Practice and Procedure-Conduct of parties to be taken into account while 
granting relief in writ petition. 
The property in dispute was undivided property (composite property) of three 
brothers, one of whom died and his sons migrated to Pakistan. One-third share 
of the p1operty was declared evacuee property and vested in the Custodian under 
the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. It was allotted to the appel-
lant who was a refugee. 
The Competent Officer issued individual notices under Section 6 of the 
Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 to the two remailling brothers of the 
evacuee sllld their acknowledgments were placed on record. Since no claim was 
filed by anyone, an order was made by the Competent Officer on 31-8-1955 vest-
ing the property in the, Custodian under Sec. 11. As the property was again 
reported to be composite property, fresh notices. were inadvertently issued to the 
co-sharen1, but no claim was filed by anyone and an order was again made on 
23-3-1957 vesting the property in the Custodian. Possession of the evacuees 
one-third share in the property was delivered to the appellant under order of 
Assistant Custodian. 
After a lapse of time, the respondents filed an application for 'restoration' 
alleging fuat no notice, for separation of the evacuee interest in the property was 
ever served on them and that they learnt of the vesting order only when" the 
Manager of the evacuee property went to the village to take p'1Sscssion. The 
Competent Officer passed an order setting aside the vesting order dated 31-8-1955 
and tnms:ferred the property to the sons of the deceased brother for Rs. 5,000/-. 
The Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property made an application to the 
Competent Officer for a review of his order, pointing out a wrong impression. 
It was stated that the evacuee interest in t.lie property had already been allotted to 
the appellant. The Competent Officer partly allowed the review. 
The respondents questioned the power of the Competent Officer to review 
his order, but the objection was rejected. 
The respondents filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The 
High Court quashed the order of review on the ground that in the absence of any 
provision in the Act for review, it was not permissible for the Competeill: Officer 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
w review his order. 
H 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
891 
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 1 s.c.R. 
. - ' A 
HELD : ( 1) The conduct of the respondents was such as to disentitle them 
c 
D 
to a writ and the High Court erred in ignoring that important aspect of the matter 
even though it was sufficient for the dismissal of the wTit petition. 
[899B] 
(2) Reviev: is a creature of a statute and cannot be entertained in the abseJice 
of a provision therefor. 
[897G] 
Harbhajan Singh v. Karan Singh & Ors., [1966] 1 SCR 817; Patel Chunibhai 
Dajibhai etc. v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar & Anr., [1965] 2 SCR 328 
referred to. 
Baijnath Ram Goenka v. Nand Kumar Singh, 
40 I.A. 54; Ananatharaju 
Slzetty v. Appu Hegde, AIR 1919 Mad. 244, approved. 
(3) The earlier two orders of the Competent Officer setting aside the vesting 
order and transferring the evacuee interest in the property to the respondents 
were therefore without jurisdiction. [897H-898A] 
( 4) But when the respondents had themselves unlawfully invoked the review 
jurisdiction of the Competent Officer, which did not exist, to their ad vantage, and 
to the disadvantage of the appellan~ they could not be heard to say, when the 
Department invoked the self-same jurisdiction on two important grounds, that 
the review orders of the Competent Officer were void for want of jurisdiction and 
mnst be set aside for that reason. 
[898H-899B] 
(5) The High Court failed to appreciate that while it was true that want of 
jurisdiction to review the order by the Competent Officer could not be cured by 
waiver, it would not ne'cessarily follow that the Court was obliged to grant a writ 
at the instance of a party whose conduct was snch as to disentitle it for it. The 
High Court was exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction and the conduct of the 
E 
petitioners was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.