LexINAYAT ULLAH versus THE CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19581 I9S1 the said trucks, additional proportionate costs both in Dhian Singh sobha the Trial Court as well as in the High Court as also Singh & Another the costs of this appeal, subject of course to the pay- 17ie Unlo~· of India ment of additional court-fee for the excess amount BharwauJ. awarded hereby. The whole of the decretal amount as above will-carry further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from this date till payment. 1957 October, 30 Appeal allowed. INAYAT ULLAH 'V. THE CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY (BHAGWATI, JAFER IMAM and GAJENDRAGADKAR "JJ.) Evacuee pTOperty, Notificatwn of-Issue of notice by Custodian on person interestec!.--Propriety, if can be deter- mined by Court-Refusal of copies of materials by Custo- . dia11r-Legality-Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950), s. 7. The appellant and his brother owned certain properties inherited from their father. The brother died and the appellant claimed to have become the sole heir. The respon- dent issued a notice under s. 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, in respect of the share of the brother on the ground that the brother had left a widow and a son who had migrated to Pakistan. The appellant, desiring to know on what materials the notice was issued, applied for copies of the materials on the basis of which the respondent had formed his opinion. The application was rejected by the respondent. The appellant filed a peti- tion under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court which was also dismissed. The appellant obtained special leave and contended that the notice was issued without jurisdiction as there was no material before the respondent to justify his issuing of the notice and that the application for the copies had been improperly rejected by the respon- dent. Held, that it was for the Custodian to form his opinion on such material as was before him and on such informa- tion which he possessed. It is not for any Court to deter- mine whether the information in the possession of the Cus- todian _was adequate to justify the issue of a notice under s. 7 of the Act: Held further, that the application for copies had been rightly rejected. There are two stages in the process where- by any property can be declared to be evacuee property under the Act. One is the issuing of the notice to persons interested and the other is the inquiry under s. 7. The proceedings ·commence after issue of the notice and not S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 817 prior to it. A party to the proceedings will be entitled to 1957 copies of the record and evidence from the stage of the lnayat UUalt issuing of the notice until the conclusion of the enquiry but v. not previous to the issue of the notice. The Custodian . • . Evacuee Property CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 144 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 9th July, 1955, of the former Madhya Bharat High Court.in Civil Misc. Case No. 27 of 1954. M. A. Khan and Ratanaparkhi, for the appellant. S. N. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 1957. October 30. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Madhya Bharat High Court dated· July 9, 1955, rejecting an application filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution. According to the appellant, his father Habibullah died more than twenty years ago leaving behind the appellant and his brother Bashirullah as his sole heirs. Habibullah, on his death, left immovable properties in the city of Indore. Bashirullah, who was unmarried, went mad in 1942 and died in 1950 without any issue. On his death, the appellant became the sole owner of all the properties left by his father Habibullah. On September 21, 1954, the respondent purported to serve on the appellant a notice under s. 7 of the Administra- tion of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the Act. This notice was not served on him and was never pasted on the property concerned. Service of the notice was, according to the appellant, not proper and therefore illegal. The appellant desiring to know on what material the notice under s. 7 of the Act was issued against him applied on October 1, 1954, for copies of the record and the evidence in the possession of the respondent on the basis of which he formed the op
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.