MAHENDRA PRATAP DUBEY versus MANAGING OFFICER, EVACUEE PROPERTY & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 791 · Decided: 16-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
791
MAHENDRA PRATAP DUBEY
v.
MANAGING OFFICER, EVACUEE PROPERTY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6384 of 2010)
NOVEMBER 16, 2018
[A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
1954: s. 10(2)(o) – Sale certificate issued by the custodian of evacuee
property – Validity of – Jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to
determine – On facts, application by respondent no. 3 claiming that
she was occupying the suit property as a owner, having purchased
the same at a public auction and in furtherance whereof sale
certificate was issued in her favour and that respondent No.4,
through whom the appellant claimed his right, title and interest in
the suit property, was causing obstruction to her possession in the
suit property on the basis of some fictitious sale certificate – Allowed
by the Managing Officer (Evacuee Property) and thereafter, upheld
by the Authorities and the High Court – On appeal, held: Application
was moved by respondent no.3 and not by appellant or any of his
stated predecessor-in-title, as such the enquiry into the application
ought to be limited to the fact as to whether the documents relied
upon by respondent no.3 before the authority, to claim that she had
acquired right, title and interest in the suit property as a consequence
of issuance of certificate of sale, were genuine – Furthermore, the
appellant has not been able to establish any causal connection with
the suit property either on account of allotment of the suit property
to him or his predecessors, by the competent authority or otherwise
– Respondent no.4 has not claimed right in respect of the suit
property in any other capacity and appellant has failed to produce
the sale certificate in favour of respondent no.4 issued by the
Custodian of Evacuee Property – In view thereof, respondent no. 4,
or any person claiming through him-appellant, could not be
permitted to question the validity of the sale certificate issued by
the Managing Officer in favour of respondent No.3 and the issue
of jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to deal with the subject
property.
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 791
791
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The application was moved by respondent No.3
and not by the appellant or any of his stated predecessor(s)-in-
title. In that situation, the enquiry into the application ought to
be limited to the fact as to whether the documents relied upon by
respondent No.3 before the authority, to claim that she had
acquired right, title and interest in the suit property as a
consequence of issuance of certificate of sale, were genuine.
Neither the appellant nor his predecessor-in-title has challenged
the validity of the said official documents issued in favour of
respondent No.3 before the concerned authority or otherwise.
In the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3, because of the
stand taken by her that respondent No.4 was also claiming right,
title and interest in the suit property by virtue of a sale certificate
issued in his favour by the Custodian, notices were issued by the
competent authority to him as well as others to evoke their
response. However, they failed to produce any document, much
less original documents, evidencing that the Custodian had issued
a sale certificate in respect of the suit property in favour of
respondent No.4. [Para 10][800-D-F]
1.2 The appellant as well as respondent No.4 having failed
to produce any original document and since there was no record
or entry in the official register to show that such a sale certificate
was issued in favour of respondent No.4 by the Department, as
concurrently found by the authorities, it must follow that their
claim in respect of the suit property remained unsubstantiated.
In other words, the appellant has not been able to establish any
causal connection with the suit property either on account of
allotment of the suit property to him or his predecessors, by the
competent authority or otherwise. [Para 11][800-G-H; 801-A]
1.3 The finding of fact and conclusion that sale certificate
issued in favour of respondent no. 3 is valid, came to be affirmed
by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority for
which reason the High Court declined to interfere. Once it is
held that no sale certificate issued in favour of respondent No.4
by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, under the 1950 Act is
forthcoming nor any entry in the official regis

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