MOHD. FAISUDDIN KHAN versus GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS .

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 25-11-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

......_, 
' 
•· 
' I 
MOHD. FAISUDDIN KHAN 
v. 
GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS . 
November 25, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, C. J., M. H. BEG, R. S. SARKARIA AND 
P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
779 
Displaced Perso;:s (Co111pensatio11 and Relwbilita.ion) Act (44 of 1954) SS· 
12 and 13-Scope df. 
When a notification is published under s. 12( 1) of the Displaced Persons 
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, under s. 12(2) the right, title 
and interest of the evacuee in the evacuee property is extinguished and the 
property vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbranc-
es. 
Section 13 of the Act provides for the payment of compensation for such 
acquisition in accordance with the principles agreed upon between the Govern-
ment of India and Pakistan. No such principles of compensation hnd, however, 
been agreed upon between the two Governments. 
The appellant was declared an evacuee and his property as evacuee property. 
When the notification under s. 12 was issued, he challenged it but the High 
. \. 
B 
c 
Court dismissed his writ petition holding that the vesting in the Central Govern-
D 
ment was unconditional and did not depend upon the fixation or payment of 
compensation under s. 13. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( l) In the face of the clear prov1S1on in s. 12(2), it could not be 
contended that the evacuee property did not vest in the Central Government 
until compensation for its acquisition had been determined and paid. 
[78 lF] 
(2) The appellant could not rely on Art. 31(2) because, Art. 31(5) ex-
E 
preS>ly provides that it shall not affect the provisions of any law which the State 
may make either in pursuance of an agreement with the Government of any 
other country "or otherwise". 
So even in the absence of an agreement with 
the Government of Pakistan, it is permissible for the State to make the Act, 
and its provisions would not be affected by anything contained in Art. 31(2). 
[781CD] 
(3) Under s. 13, compensation would have been payable to the appellant in 
accordance with any principles agreed upon between the Government of India 
F 
and Pakistan. 
Therefore, in the absence of such an agreement, the appel!ant 
would not be entitled to claim any compensation. 
[781-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2409 
of 
1969. 
From the Judgment and order 
dated the 19th July, 1968 of 
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 1994 of 1964. 
G 
K. Rajendra Chowdhary and 
Mrs. Surendra 
Krishnan for the 
Appellant. 
I. N. Sinha, Sol. General, Girish Chandra for Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHINGHAL, J.-This appeal by certificate is directed against the 
judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated July 19, 
1968. It is not in dispute that appellant Mohd. Faisuddin Khan is 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976) 2 S.C.R. 
a c1t1zen of India, and was declared an evacuee by an order of the 
Deputy Custodia".1 of Evacuee Property, Hyderabad, dated 
Septem-
' ber 18, 1951. 
His property, consisting of a building and 35~ acre·s 
of land, was declared to be evacuee property. 
The Custodian of 
Evacuee Property issued a notice to the appellant on April 5, 1961 
calling upon him to surrender possession of the property. 
That was 
followed by a notification dated January 20, 1962, of the Central 
Government, under s.12 of the Displaced 
Persons (Compensation 
and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 
by which that government acquired all properties which had been 
declared to be evacuee properties, for a purpose connected with _the 
relief and rehailitation of displaced 
persons, 
including payment 
of compensation. 
The appellant, challenged the aforesaid notification 
as unconstitutional and applied for writ of certiorarai on a proper cons-
truction of ss.12 and 15 of the Act. 
In its impugned judgment, the 
High Court has taken the view that on publication of the notification 
under s. 12 ( 1) of the Act, the right, title a:ad interest of the evacuee 
was extinguished in the evacuee property and it vested absolutely in 
the Central Government free from all encumbrances. 
That, in the 
view of the High Court, was unconditional, and was not made to 
depend upon the fixation or payment of compensation under section 
13, notwithstanding the fact that the principles for payment of com-
pensation had not been agreed upon between the Governments 
of 
India and Pakistan and had not therefore b.een fixed.

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