NASIR AHMED versus ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN GENERAL, EVACUEE PROPERTY U.P., LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 248 · Decided: 28-03-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
i4s 
NASIR AHMED 
v. 
ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN GENERAL, EVACUEE PROPERTY 
U.P., LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER 
March 28, 1980 
[A. C. GUPTA AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950-Notice issued under .rec~ 
lion 2(d) (iii)-Dec/aration made under section 2(d) (i) and (ii)-Validity of. 
A notice under section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 
1950, Wa! Issued by the filsistant Custodian of Evacuee Property to the· appel~ 
lant and his brother (since deceased) stating that there WM "credible infor~ 
mation in possession of the Custodian" that they were evacuees under ~1ause 
(iii) of oection 2(d) of the Act and calling upon them to ohow cause why 
they should not be declared evacuees and their property as evacuee property. 
The .Assistant CustOOian eventually declared the appellant and his brother as 
evacuees under clauses (i), (ii) & (iii) of section 2(d) of the Act. 
The Authorised· Deputy Custodian, although he .clismiosed the 
appellant'• 
appeal under ~ection 24 of the Act, pointed out that the ground based on 
. clause (iii) of section 2(d) was "very vague" and that the notice was "defective 
to th:!t extent''. The Assistant Custodian General Evacuee Property dismissed 
the appellant's review petition and the High Court dismissed the writ petition 
in limine. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : The notice and the declaration that followed stating that the appel-
lant was an evacuee under clauses (i) and (ii) of section 2(d) of the Act are 
invalid. 
[252E-F] 
1. The notice called upon the appCllant and his brother to show cause why 
F 
they should not be declared evacueeo under clause (iii) of section 2.( d) and 
the ground mentioned in the notice was also based on that clause, yet the 
Assistant Cmtodian found that they were evacuees under clauses (i) and (ii) 
as well. The Authorised Deputy Custodian held that the ground given in the 
notice in support of the case based on clause (iii) was vague and the notice 
was defective so far as that ground was concerned, but that was the only case 
G 
the appellant was called upon to answer. 
The foundation of a proceeding 
under section 7 is a valid notice and an inquiry which travels beyond the bounds 
of the notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that .extent. [2.521)..E] 
B 
2. From the facts statid above, it would appear that the Authority concern-
ed did not apply his mind to the relevant material before issuing the notice. 
The same thing is apparent from another fact. 
On November 29, 19.52 the 
Deputy Custodian dropped the proceeding seeking to declare the appellant an 
intending evacuee and that on the same day directed initiation of a proceeding 
under section 7. Section 7 required the Custodian to form an opinion that the 
property in question was evacuee 
property within the 
meaning of the 
Act 
; 
+ 
,, 
NASIR AHMED v. ASSTT. CUSTODIAN GENERAL (Gupta, J.) 
24, 
before any action under that section was taken. 
Under rule 6 of the Admini:;;-
tration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rriles 1950 the Custodian had to be 
satisfied from information in his possession or otherwise that the property was 
prim'.a facie evacuee property before a notice was issued. 
On November 29, 
1952 no evidence was found to support a declaration that the appellant was 
an intending evacuee. There was no material on record to suggest on that 
very day the authority had before him any evidence to justify initiation of a 
proceeding to declare the appellant an evacuee and his property as evacuee 
proprty. 
The notice under section 7 appears to have been issued without any 
basis. 
The Assistant Custodian General, who found no merit in the revisionnl 
application preferred by the appellant, 
overlooked 
these aspects of the case. 
[252H, 253 A·B] 
Ctv1t APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 512 of 1979. 
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated 18-5-1965 of the Alla-
habad High Court in Civil Writ No. 2945 of 1964. 
Danial Latifi and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the Appellant. 
Nemo for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GUPTA, J.-A notice issued under section 7 of the Administration 
of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) gives rise 
to this appeal brought on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High 
Court on August 18, 1969 under Article 133(l)(a) of the;Constitut10n 
...( 
of India. Sub-section (1) of section 7 states : 
• 
"Where the Custodian is of opinion that any property is 
evacue

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