LexDAFEDAR NIRANJAN SINGH AND ANOTHER versus CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY (PB.) AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
March 8. 214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] DAFEDAR NIRANJAN SINGH AND ANOTHER CUSTODIAN, v. EVACUEE PROPERTY (PB.) AND ANOTHER. (K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Evacuee Property-Custodian-Power of revision-Patiala Evacuees (Administration of Property) Ordinance of Samvat 2004 (No. IX of 2004)-Patiala and East Punjab States Union Ordi- nance No. XIII of Samvat 2&06-Patiala and East Punjab State Union Ordinance No. XV II of 2006-Central Ordinance No. XXV II of r949-Administration of Evacuee Property Act (No. XXXI of r950) ss. 27 and 58(3). The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Patiala, took posses- sion of two houses under the provisions of the Patiala Evacuees (Administration of Property) Ordinance of Samvat 2004 (No. IX of 2004) but on the appellant claiming the houses as belonging to him they were released in his favour by the Custodian by an order dated June 6, r949. Thereafter several Ordinances relat- ing to evacuee property were passed one after another, the later one repealing the previous one and creating a chain of fictions by which certain provisions of the repealed Ordinance were deemed to continue under the repealing Ordinance. The last Ordinance was replaced by the Administration of Evacuee Pro- perty Act (No. XXXI of r950) under the provisions of which the Deputy Custodian General set aside the order of Custodian dated June 6, r949, after giving notice to the present appellants. On appeal by special leave the appellants contended that (r) the deeming provisions of the repealing Ordinances and Acts culminating in s. 58(3) of the Act apply only to things or action taken by the Custodian in exercise of his administrative powers and not to orders made by him in exercise of his judicial powers, (2) the order dated June 6, -.:949 passed by the Custodian under Ordinance IX of 2004 could not be deemed to be an order passed under the Act as the chain of fictions was broken when Ordi- nance No. XIII of 2006, repealing the previous Ordinance IX of 2004 was issued, (3) s. 58 (3) of the Act expressly saves the pre- vious operation of Ordinance XXVII of r949 or any correspond- ing law, and, therefore, the orders that had become final under the said Ordinance could not be revised under s. 27 of the Act. Held, that the operation of s. 58(3) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (No. XXXI of r950) was not confined only to administrative acts done by the Custodian under the earlier Ordinances but the provisions of that section applied also to judicial orders passed by him. ' .. .t 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COUR'l' REPORTS 215 Indira Sohan Lal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi, 1961 [ 1955] 2 S.C.R. III], followed. The order dated June 6, 1949, releasing the property in dis-D~fedar Niranjan pute was passed under Ordinance No. IX of 2004 by the Custodian Singh 6 Another and not the Claims Officer as provided in the successive Ordi- v. nance No. XIII of 2006 and therefore that order could not be Custodian. deemed to have been passed under the successive Ordinances Evacuee Prop1tty and the Act. The alleged chain of fiction was broken during the (Pb.) 6 Another period when Ordinance No. XIII of 2006 was in force. Even if the Custodian was the Claims Officer, his order must be deemed to be an order made under the later Ordinance only for the limited purpose of appeal or revisions. Under s. 25 of the last Ordinance namely Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 the order of the Custodian was appealable but no appeal having been filed it had become final under s. 28. The order of the Custodian which had become final under the said Ordinance, could not be affected retrospectively under s. 58(3) of the Act so as to deprive the order of the Custodian of the finality it had acquired under the said Ordinance. Section 58(3) does not contain any positive indication giving it such retroactivity but in express terms it saves the previous operation of that Ordinance. Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving, (1905) A. C. 69, followed. Indira Sohan Lal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property. Delhi, [1955] 2 S.C.R. n17, considered. Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Income-tax Commissioner, Delhi, (1927) I.L.R. 9 Lah. 284, referred to. ]anki Prasad v. The Custodian Evacuee Property, ]ullundur, (1955) I.L.R. 8 Punj. 823, disapproved. The words "any time" or "any Custodian" in s. 27 of the Act must necessarily be confined only to orders of any one
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.