LexCUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY PUNJAB & ORS. versus JAFRAN BEGUM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY PUNJAB & ORS. A v . .JAFRAN BEGUM April 20, 1967 [K. N. WANCHOO, C.J., V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.) B Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950), s. 4~Deci- sion by Custodian that property was evacuee property~uit in Civil Court challenging decision-If maintainable. A person who was in possession of a house in India, migrated to Pakistan. Notice was issued to his son under s. 7 of the Administra• tion of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and after hearing him the Deputy c Custodian declared the house to be evacuee property. The respondent, who was the wife of the evacuee and on whom the notice under s. 7 of the Act was not served, started proceedings before the OJstodian, claim- ing that the owner of the house had executed a will bequeathing the pro- perty to her and so the property could not be declared evacuee property. When she failed before the authorities constituted under the Act, she filed a suit in the civil court basing her case on the will and prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the authorities under the Act from D evicting her from the house. On the question whether the suit in the civil court was maintainable, the High Court held that the question whether a certain person had or had not become an evacuee was determinable only by the authorities under the Act, but the determination of a complicated question of law relating to title by such ·authorities, if such a question . arose, was not final and could be reopened in the civil court; that the suit in the present E case did raise such a question and therefore, the civil court bad jurisdic- tion to entertain it. In appeal to this Court, HELD : Two questions will arise in every case where the authoritv has to declare under s. 7 of the Act whether a property is evacuee prO- perty, namely, (i) ·whether a particular person has or has not become an F evacuee, and (ii) whether the property in dispute belongs to him. There is nothing in the section which shows that the authority under the Act (being a quasi judicial authority) cannot enter into all questions, whether of fact or law, simple or complicated, in deciding whether certain pro- perty belon~s to an evacuee; nor does his jurisdiction depend upon a correct finding on a collateral fact. The power to decide all these ques- tions could not be denied on the ground that . the authority under s. 7 may not be an experienced judicial officer, because, his decision is not G final and is open to appeal under s. 24 and to revision under s. 27 by authorities who are experienced judicial officers. Havin$ thus provided a complete machinery for adjudication of all claims with respect to evacuee property, under ss. 7, 24 and 27, the Act, by s. 28, gives finality to the order of the authorities mentioned therein and lays down that such orders shall not be called in question in any court by way of appeal or revision or in any ·original suit, application or executio!' ~r~e~ing. The H Legislature has gone further and expressly bai:ed the 1un~d1ction of the civil and revenue courts under s. 46 to entert.ain or ad1ud1cate upon imy question whether any property or any right to or interest in any J>roperty is or is not evacuee property. Further, s. 4(1) of the Act provides that A B c D E ' CUSTODIAN v. JAFRAN BEGUM (Wanchoo, C.J.) 737 the Act overrides other laws and would thus override s. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. Jn these circumstances, . s. 46 is ~ compl~te _bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the. smt or a~1ud1cate u~n the question whether the property in dispute or nght to or mterest. th!'r~m is or is not evacuee property. But ""· 28 and 46 cannot bar the 1unsd1c- tion of the High Court under Art. 226 for, that is a power conferred by the Constitution. [740 G-H; 742 A, E, F-G; 743 A-B, D:-G, 744 A, B-Fl S. M. Zaki v. The State of Bihar, A.l.R. 1953 Pat. 112 and Khalil' Ahmad Khan v. Malka Meher Nigar Begum, A.I.R. All. 362, approved. Observation at page 934 in Namazi v. Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property, A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 930, disapproved. [The question whether the civil courts have jurisdiction to ~ami.ne· ·into cases where the provisions of the Ac.t have not _been .comphed with. or the statutory tribunal has not acted m confonn1ty with the funda- mental principles of judicial procedure, not decided.] [745 D-E] Abdul Majid Haji Mohmed v. P. R. Nayak, A.I.R. 1950 Born. 440
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.