INDIRA SOHANLAL versus USTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, DELHI & OTHERS.

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1117 · Decided: 28-10-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1117 
also not only reasonable but called for in the circum-
stances, which occasioned the Evacuee Property laws. 
In this case the petitioner is deprived of his bargain 
and incurs consequential loss, not by virtue of any 
unconstitutional law 
but by reason of the 
quasi-
judicial order of the Custodian declining to confirm 
the transaction. The contention of the learned coun-
sel for the petitioner that any fundamental right of 
his has been violated must, therefore, be reiected. 
Learned counsel next urges that the action of the 
Custodian in basing his decision on some circular of 
the Custodian-General is illegal and that it is not re-
levant material under section 5-A. It is enough to 
say that even if this contention be correct, this does 
not raise 
any 
question of violation of fundamental 
rights. If this is the sole ground, this application is 
misconceived. 
· 
This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but 
in the circuqistances without costs. 
INDIRA SOHANLAL 
ti. 
CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, 
DELHI & OTHERS. 
[S. R. DAs, AcTING C. J., VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHA-
DAS, JAFER IMAM and CttANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] 
Evacuee 
Pt'Dperty-Custodian-General-Revisional 
powers-
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950), ss. 
27, 58(3)-Transaction before the passing of the Act-Application for 
confirmation-East Punjab Evacttees' 
(Administration of Property) 
Act, 1947 (East Punjab Act XIV of 1947), ss. 5-A, 5-B-Order of 
confirmation .afte1· passing of Act XXXI of 1950-Revision-Vali-
dity-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), s. 6-Applicability. 
The appellant, a displaced person from Lahore, was the owner 
o( a house there and on the 10th of October, 1947, she arranged to 
have it exchanged with certain lands in a village in the State of 
Delhi, belonging to M, an evacuee. On the 23rd of February, 1948, 
she made an application to the Additional Custodian 
of Evacuee 
Property (Rural), Delhi, for 
confirmation of the transaction of ex-
1955 
Sadhll Ram 
v. 
The Custodian-
Gentral of Evacuee 
Property 
JagannadhadaJ ]. 
1955 
Octob<r 28. 
1955 
Indirtl Sohonlal 
v. 
Cust.Jian of 
&acuu Property, 
Delhi and othtrs 
1118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
change under s. 5-A of the East Punjab Evacuees' {Administration 
of Property) Act, 1947, as amended in 1948 and applied to the State 
of Delhi. Under s. 5-B of the Act an order if passed by the Custo-
dian or Additional Custodian would not be subject to appeal or revi-
sion, and would become final and conclusive. 
But the application 
\.Vas not disposed of until the 20th of March, 1952, and on that date 
· the Additional Custodian passed an order confirming the exchange. 
In the 1neanwhile~ there were changes in the la\v relating to evacuee 
property by \Vhich the East Punjab Act as applied to the State of 
Delhi v1as repealed and re-enacted, and ultimately Central Act XXXI 
of 1950 was passed which, among other 
things, conferred by s. 27 
revisional powers on the Custodian-General. The Custodian-General 
issued a notice under s. 7.7 to the appellant and, after hearing her, 
set aside the order of confirmation and directed the matter to be re-
considered by the Custodian, 
It was 
contended for the 
appellant 
that the order of confirmation by the Additional Custodian was not 
open to revision, on the ground that on the filing of the application 
in 1948 the appellant got a vested right to have it determined under 
s. 5-A, with the attribute of finality and conclusiveness under s. 5-B 
attaching to such determination, and that the subsequent repe3l and 
re-enactment of these provisions cannot affect 
such a right, in view 
of s. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 
and s. 58(3) of Act XXXI of 
1950. 
Held, (i) that s. 6 of~ General Clauses Act (X. oj 1897) was 
not applicable to the case, as s. 58(\) ~\ Act XXXI 'of 1950 was a 
self-contained provision 
indicative "f the intention to e:icclude the 
operatic n of s. 6 ; 
(ii) that the right to a determination with the attribute of fina-
lity, assuming that such a right exists, is not a vested right and it 
does not accrue until the determination is in fact made, ~1hen alone 
it becon1es an existing right. 
Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving ([1905] A.C. 369) 
and Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Income-tar Com-
missioner ( [ 1927] J.L.R. 9 Lah. 284 ; 54 I.A. 421 ), distinguished; 
(iii) that the words "the repeal 
shall not affect the previous 
operation of 

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