LexN. S. GUJRAL versus CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
., A B N. S. GUJRAL v. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY II ANR. September 12, 1967 [K. N. WANCHOO, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.) 497 Displaced Persons (Compensation and ·Rehabilitation) Act (44 of 19541, s. 12 and Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950), ss. 10(1) and 10(2) (m) and (n)-lf violative of Arts. 14 and 19(l)lf) of the Constitution of India-Law impairing obligation under contract-If ultra vires Constitution. · C The appellant obtained a decree against two persons who, along with their wives, migrated to Pakistan. Before the decree was passed, the two judgment debtors had executed two deeds releasing their property, which was a building in favour of the wives. The property was declared evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. 1950 and on the appellant's application, his claim l:ased on the decree was registered by the D Custodian. Later, the Custodian held that the evacuee property belonged to the wives of the judgment-debtors. The appellant filed a suit for setting aside the release deeds on the ground that they were of no effect as being in fraud of the creditors. But, be- fore the suit was filed, the Central Government. in pursuance of a notification issued under s. 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensa· tlon and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, acquired the property. As a result of the notification. the property which was in law the pro- s perty of the evacuees-though it was under the administration qf . and vested in, the Custodian under the 1950 Act-became the pro- . perty of the Central Government free from all· encumbrances. So, in addition to the main ·plea in the suit the appellant also contended that s. 12 of the 1954 Act and the notification issued thereunder violated Arts. 19(l)(f) and 14 of the Constitution. He further con- tended that the amendment by Act 91 of 1956 of s:·10(2)(m) of the 1950 Act. as a result of which the Custodian's power to pay the eva- F cuee's debts was deleted from the clause, was ultra vires. On an application under Art. 228, the High Court tried the two constitu- tional issues and decided them against the appellant and remanded the suit to the trial court. In appeal to this Court, HEw: (l)(a) Section 12 of 1954 Act did not interfere with the appellant's right to acquire, hold and dispose of his property, 6 namely, the decree against the evacuees. At no time did the appellant have any right whatsoever in the property which vested · in the Central Government on the issue of the notification. Its only effect was that the appellant could not proceed against the property in execution of his decree. Therefore the appellant could not claim the protection under Art. 19(l)(f). [501A: 502A-D] (b) It could not be said that there was violation of Art. 14 on JI the ground that decree-holders against non-evacuee property could execute their decrees while decree-holders against evacuee property could not: There is a reasonable ·classification between evacuee property and non-evacuee property, and .there is a clear nexus bet- ween the object to be achieved by the 1954 Act. namely, rehabilita- tion of evacuees from Pakistan. and the provision in s. 12. ty which L/J(N)6BCI-6 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1968] I s.c.R. I the property of evacuees in India is to be utilized for such rehabili- A iation. [502E-G] (c) The appellant cannot also be heard to say that s. 12 impefrs the obljgation of the judgment-debtors under contract between them .and himself because. there is no prohibition against such a law in the Indian Constitution. [501F] (2) The amendment of s. 10(2)(m) made no difference to the legal position, for the power of the Custodi.an to pay the debts of the B evacuee still remained unimpaired under s. 10(2)(n) read with ·s. 10(1). Therefore, it was unnecessary to consider the invalidity of the amendment of s. 10(2)(m). [500F-H] Raja Bhanupratap Singh v. Assistant Cust.nian of Evacuee Property, U,P. [1966] 1 S.C.R. 304, followed. (3) Though the appellant could not claim to proceed against the C property in suit or its income, after the date on which it became vested in the Central Government by virtue of tlie notification under s. 12, he could ask the Custodian to pay him out of the moneys lying with him on the date of such vesting if he can satisfy him in the manner provided in s, 10(2)(n) read with s. 10(1). of the 1950 Act. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.