LexSHANKARA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. versus M. PRABHAKAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011] 7 S.C.R. 468 SHANKARA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v. M. PRABHAKAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4099 of 2000) MAY 05, 2011 [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: s. 12 - Property notified uls. 7 of the Evacuee Property Act - Subsequently issuance of Notification uls. 12 - Acquisition of evacuee property for rehabilitation of displaced persons - Effect of - Held: Notification issued uls . . 7 of the 0 Evacuee Property Act declaring the property to be evacuee property was valid in law - In view of the Notification issued by the Central Government uls. 12, the property vested in the Central Government - Thus, the property lost the status of evacuee property - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, E 1950- s. 7. s. 24 - Power of revision of Chief Settlement Commissioner under - Scope of - Held: Chief Settlement Commissioner can revise the order if in his opinion the orders passed by the officers named in the Section are either illegal F or improper - On facts, the Chief Settlement Commissioner invoked his revisional powers at the request of the allotteesl displaced persons to revise the proceedings and the order passed by the Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian under the provisions of the Evacuee Property Act- Therefore, the orders G passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner is without jurisdiction and non-est in law - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Constitution of India, 1950: H 468 SHANKARA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v. M. 469 PRABHAKAR & ORS. Article 226 - Belated writ petition challenging the A Notification issued under the Evacuee Property Act, declaring · certain properties as evacuee property - Maintainability of - Held: High Court ought not to have entertained and granted relief to the writ petitioners since there was inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the court/authorities at B every stage for redressal of their grievance - They claimed wrong reliefs/incomplete reliefs before the Authorities - They questioned the correctness of the said Notification by way of filing an amendment application - Also in the earlier writ petition challenging the Notification, the finding regarding c delay and failure to avail alternate remedy had attained finality - More so, during the period of delay, interest accrued in favour of the third party - Delay//aches. Article 226 - Writ petition filed by original owner of land challenging the Notification issued u/s. 7 of the Evacuee D Property Act declaring certain properties as evacuee properties - Petition dismissed by the High Court since the claim was highly belated and there was a failure to avail the alternate remedy provided under the Act - Said order attaining finality - Subsequently writ petition filed re-agitating E the said issue which had attained finality and the Division Bench of the High Court entertained the same - Held: The judgment and order of the High Court having attained finality was binding on the authorities under the Evacuee Property Act - Division Bench of the High Court could not have F permitted the writ petitioners to re-agitate the correctness or otherwise of the Notification issued uls. 7 of the Evacuee Property Act in the subsequent writ petition - A subsequent writ petition was not maintainable in respect of an issue concluded between the parties in the earlier writ petition - G Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Articles 226 and 227 - High Court while entertaining writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 wherein the proceedings uls. 7 of the Evacuee Property Act was H 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R. A questioned, going into disputed questions of facts - Maintainability of - Held: Writ petition is maintainable - Under the Evacuee Property Act, there is specific bar for the civil court to adjudicate on the issue whether certain property is or is not evacuee property - This issue can be decided only by B the custodian under the Act - Any person aggrieved by the findings of the custodian can avail the other remedies provicied under the Act - Thus, the finding and the conclusion reached by the Authorities under the Act in an appropriate case can be questioned in a petition filed under Article 226 c - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Res judicata - Principles of constructive res judicata - Applicability of - When ground open to be raised was not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.