SADHU RAM versus THE CUSTODIAN-GENERAL OF EVACUEE PROPERTY

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1113 · Decided: 28-10-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
2S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1113 
For the reasons aforesaid it must be held that there 
ts no merit in the application 
and the rule 
is accord-
ingly discharged, and the application is dismissed. 
SADHU RAM 
v. 
THE CUSTODIAN-GENERAL OF EVACUEE 
PROPERTY. 
[S. R. DAs, ACTING C.J., VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHA-
DAS, JAFER IMAM and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] 
Fundamental 
Rights, 
Infringement of-Transfer of evacuee 
property-Requirement of confirmation by Custodian-Retrospective 
effect, if amounts to deprivation of property-If a reasonable restric-
tion-Refusal of confirmation by quasi-judicial order based on irrele-
vant material-Application under Art. 32, if 
maintainable-Consti-
tution of India, Arts. 19, 31, 32-East Punjab Evacuees' (Adminis-
tration of Property) Act, 1947 (East Punjab Act XIV of 1947) as 
amended by East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Pr'bperty) 
(Amendment) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act XXVI of 1948), s. 5-A. 
The applicant purchased 
certain 
agricultural 
lands 
from a 
Muslim evacuee. The sale deed was executed, registered and posses-
sion was delivered to the applicant in September, 1947, before the 
East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) 
Act of 
1947 
came into 
operation on the 12th of December, 
1947. 
By subse-
quent amendments a new 
section, 
s. 5-A, was 
inserted into the 
Act with retrospective effect from the 15th of August, 1947, render· 
ing transactions in respect 
of 
evacuee property 
ineffective unless 
confirmed by the Custodian. The applicant 
applied for confirma-
tion. 
The Assistant Custodian recommended such confirmation but 
the Additional Custodian, acting in terms of a circular issued by the 
Custodian-General enunciating a policy 
of non-confirmation with 
regard 
to agricultural lands, 
refused to 
confirm the applicant's 
purchase and this order was affirmed by the Assistant Custodian-
General in revision. 
It was contended on behalf of the 
applicant, 
inter alia, that the retrospective oper;ition of s. 5-A of the Act was 
in effect a 
deprivation of property without compensation and was 
hit by Art. 31 of the Constitution. 
Held that s. 5-A of the East Punjab Evacuees' 
(Administration 
of Property) Act though retrospective in operation does not amount 
to deprivation of 
property in respect of 
past transactions and is 
valid. 
In 
respect of future transactions 
the requirement of con-
1955 
P. L. Laklianpal 
v. 
T"4 Stale of 
Jammu and 
Kashmir 
Sinha J. 
1955 
Oclob.r 28. 
J95li 
Sadhu Ram 
v. 
Tire Cuslodian-
Gmual of Eoacue1 
Proper!,] 
1114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
firmation is clearly a 
restriction 
and not 
a deprivation. 
Such 
restriction \Vas also reasonable having 
regard to the purpose and 
policy of the Evacuee Property Law. The requirement of confirma-
tion being thus in essence only a restriction and not a deprivation, 
retrospectivity in the operation of that restriction does not make it 
deprivation. 
That the applicant's loss 
\Vas occasioned not by any unconsti-
tutional la\V but by a quasi-judicial order of the Custodian refusing 
confirmation 
ari_d~ 
consequently, 
his contention 
that any funda-
mental right had been violated must be rejected. 
'['hat even 
if 
the contention that the order was itself illegal 
being based on irrelevant material be correct, 
that did not by itself 
raise any question of violation of any fundamental right and would 
be no ground for an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution. 
ORIGINAL 
JuR1so1cT10N : Petition No. 306 of 1954. 
U ndcr Article 32 of the Constitution for the en-
forcement of Fundamental Rights. 
Kundan Lal Mehta and B.RL. Iyengar, for the 
petitioner. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India 
(Porus 
A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, with him) for the respon-
dent. 
1955. October 28. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
JAGANNADHADAS J.-This 
is 
an 
application 
under 
article 32 of the Constitution which arises under the 
following circumstances. The pet1t1oner, Sadht1 Ram, 
purchased from one lmam-ud-Din, a muslim evacuee, 
43 Bighas 
14 Biswas 
of agricultural land comprised in 
Khasra Nos. 2135 to 2139, 2158, 2159, 
2171, 2204 and 
2206 with Sham/at rights in village Kaithal, District 
Karna!, 
Punjab. The sale deed was executed on the 
6th September, 1947, and registered on the 9th Septem-
ber, 1947, before 
lmam-ud-Din left for Pakistan. The 
cons1deration 
therefore was Rs. 3,000 and as much as 
Rs. 2,700 thereof appears to have been paid by 
the 
p

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