HAJI SIDDIK HAJI UMAR & OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 18-01-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

249 
HAJJ SIDDIK HAJI UMAR & OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
Jam1ary 18, 1983 
(A. P. SEN, B.S. VBNKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.J 
Admi•istratlon of Evacuee Property Act, 1950-Sub·•· (2A) of•· 8 and 
ss. 28 and 46-Property taken over as evacuee property under any repealed law-
Sub-s. (2A) ;of" 8 operates even If there Is no defect in pr1viou1 law and cures 
all defects I• taking over-81. 28 and 46 bar jurisdiction of civil court to lnterf1re 
in any matter dttermined by Custodian General or Custodian. 
Sub s. (2A) of s. 8 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 19SO 
states that all property which under •Ill' law repealed by the Act purports to 
have vested as evacuee property in any person exercising the powers of 
Custodian in any State shall, notwithstatiding any defect in, or the invalidity of 
such law or any judgment. decree or order of any Court be deemed for all 
purposes to have validly vested in that person, as if the provisions of such law 
bad been enacted by-Parliament and such property shall, on the commencement 
of the Act, be deemed to have been evacuee· property declared as such within 
the meaning of the Act and accordingly, any order made or other action taken 
by !he Custodian or, any other authority in relation to Such property shall be 
deemed to have been validly and lawfully made or taken. 
The properties whicJt were the subject matter of the suit from which 
this appeal arose were situate in the erstwhile State of Junagadh and belonged 
to one Haii Umar Kasam who had sailed from Bombay on October 8, 1947 on 
a pilgrimage to Mecca. On May 1, 1948 a notice in respect of these properties 
was issued under tho Junagadh State Evacuo• (Administration of Property) Act 
XII of 1948 but it was withdrawn on May 31, 1948 on receipt of a reply from 
bis son that he had not gone away from Junagadh out of fear of civjl distur .. 
bances but in fact had gone on Haj and was expected to return shortly. Since 
he did not return till September, 1948 the Custodian took possession of the suit 
·properties. Thereafter the territory of Junagadh became -intearated with. the 
United States of Saurashtra and the Junagadh Act was repealed by a Saurashtra 
-Ordinance which in turn was repealed by a Central Ordinance. The Administra· 
tion of Evacuee Property Act, 19SO replaced the Central Ordinance. 
An orde.r declaring Haji Umar Kasam as an evacuee was issued on May 
20, 1949 by!tho Custodian purporting to act under tho Junagadh Act. Tho 
appeal filed against this order before the District Judge, Junagadh was transferred 
by him "to the High Court of Saurashtra which in tum sent the same to the 
CostodiaQ qf i;aurashtra for disposal. H•ii Umar Kasam returned to lndi~ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
-"-="'------
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1983] 2 s.c.R. 
. ' 
during the pondency of that appeal aJld·filed a petition under the provisions of 
the Central Ordinance-which had come into force by then-before the 
Custodian General requesting him to transfer the appeal to his file for disposal. 
Before this petition could be heard, the appeal was dismissed by the Custodian 
of Saurashtra on June 21 1950. A revision filed against this order was dismissed 
on August 9, 1950 by the Custodian G:neral along with the petition for transfer 
of the appeal which had been filed earlier, Haji Umar Kasam's application under 
s. 16 of the Central Ordinance for restoration of his property was also turned 
down when the Central Government deciioed to grant the certificate contempla-
ted under the proviso to sllb-s. (I) thereof on the ground that, contrary to his 
claim that he had gone to Mecca and stayed there, there was evidence suggest-
ing that he must have been in Karachi for a major part of the period during 
which he was away from India. A notification was also issued in respect of the 
suit properties under s. 12 of the J)isplaced Persons (ComPensation and 
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. 
The heirs and legal representati1,es of Haji Umar K.asam filed the suit 
contending that he was not an evacuee; pthat the taking over of possession of the 
properties after the withdrawal of the: notice on May 31; 1948 without issuing 
further notice was illegal; that an order directing restoration of the properties to 
Haji Umar Kasam had been passed o•n March 1, 1949 and therefore the order 
of May 20~ J 949 declaring him an evaLcuee · without issuing notice or holding an 
inquiry was illegal; and that the orders passed 
by the Custodi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.