MD. SHARFUDDIN versus R. P. SINGH AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 10-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

P_. 
·-
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
239 
Md. SHARFUDDIN 
v. 
R. P. SINGH AND OTHERS. 
(K. SuBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and 
J, R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Appeal-Person aggrieved-Property held to be not evacuee pro-
perty-Whether Assistant Custodian can prefer appeal against order 
-Administration of Evacuee Property Act, r950 (Jr of r950), 
s. 24(r)(a). 
The Assistant Custodian, Giridih, passed an order holding 
that the properties of the appellant were not evacuee properties. 
The Custodian, acting under s. 26(1) of the Administration of 
Evacuee Property Act, 1950, called for the records of the case, 
and after hearing the appellant dropped the proceedings. Subse-
quently, the Assistant Custodian, Head-quarters, Patna, filed an 
appeal before the Custodian under s. 24(1)(a) of the Act, against 
the order of the Assistant Custodian, Giridih. In appeal the 
Custodian declared the shares of the brothers of the appellant in 
the property to be evacuee property and referred the matter for 
separation of their shares. The appellant contended that no 
appeal lay under s. 24(1)(a) at the instance of the Assistant 
Custodian, Head-quarters. 
Held, that the appeal filed by the Assistant Custodian, Head-
quarters was incompetent. The Assistant Custodian, Head-
quarters, was not a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of s. 24 
of the Act, by the order of the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, and 
he could not prefer an appeal. 
Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian-General of Evacuee Property, 
[1952] S.C.R. 696, distinguished. 
. 
Crvn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
458 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
decree dated September 3, 1956, of the Patna High 
Court in M. J. No. 603 of 1955. 
M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, S. 0. Agarwal and 
D. P. Singh, for the appellant. 
R. O. Prasad, for the respondents. 
1961. March 10. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
March IO, 
SUBBA RAO, J.-This appeal by special leave is 
Subb• Rao J. 
directed against the order of the High Court of Judi-
cature at Patna dismissing the application filed by the 
1961 
Md. Sharfuddin 
v. 
R. P. Singh 
& Others 
Subba Rao ]. 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash 
the order dated August 4, 1955, passed by Shri R. P. 
Singh, Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bihar. 
. 
The facts relevant to the question raised in this 
appeal may be briefly stated. 
On information sup-
plied by one Qurban Ahmad, the Assistant Custodian, 
Giridih, issued a notice under s. 7(1) of the Adminis-
tration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Act 31 of 
1950), (hereinafter called the Act), to the appellant to 
show cause why he should not declare holdings Nos. 
326, 77 4 and 654 in his possession as evacuee proper-
ties. 
Tho Assistant Custodian, after making the 
necessary 'inquiry, held that the said holdings were 
evacuee properties. 
The appellant filed a revision 
petition under s. 26 of the Act against the said order 
to the Deputy Custodian, Hazaribagh, who set aside 
the order of the Assistant Custodian and remanded 
the matter to him for disposal in accordance with 
law. On April 26, 1954, the Assistant Custodian, 
Giridih, on a consideration of the evidence placed 
before him, held that the said properties were not 
evacuee properties, and on that finding he released 
them. Thereafter, the Custodian, acting under s. 26(1) 
of the Act, called for the records of the case and, after 
hearing the appellant, by his order dated January 27, 
1955, dropped the proceedings. On February 22, 1955,.._ 
the Assistant Custodian, Head-quarters, Patna filed an 
appeal before the Custodian, under s. 24(l)(a) of the 
Act, against the order of the Assistant Custodian, 
Giridih, dated April 26, 1954, releasing the holdings of 
the appellant. 
On August 4, 1955, the Custodian set 
aside the order. of the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, 
and declared the shares of the brothers of the appel-
lant in the holdings to be evacuee properties and 
referred the matter to the appropriate authority for 
the separation of their interest. 
Thereafter, the 
appellant filed an application to the High Court 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the said 
order, but that was dismissed. 
Hence the appeal. 
Though many questions were raised before the 
High Court, only the following four questions were 
pressed before us by learned counsel for the_appellant· 
• • 
• 
' 
r 
\ 
1 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
241 
(1) No appeal lay to the

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