STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS. versus MAHMOOD AHMED & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 13-04-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. NATARAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

., 
~ l 
A 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS. 
!) 
v. 
MAHMOOD AHMED & ORS. 
APRIL 13, 1989. 
B 
[S. NATARAJAN AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
' '-
Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act 2006 of J & K State: )' 
Sections 6, 8, 9 and 14--Necessity for continuance of provisions-
Emphasized. 
-
c 
Respondent .No. 1, who claimed to be the owner of the evacuee 
property in dispute, sold it to respondents 2 and 3 in 1970. In 1973, the 
Custodian, Evacuee Property, held that the sale was invalid since the -t 
property belonged to one Shah Mahmood, and after Shah Mabmood's 
migration to Pakistan during 1947 became evacuee property under the 
Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act 2006 or J & K State. The 
D Custodian General, while dismissing the respondents' appeal against 
the Custodian's order, observed inter alia, that if any application bad 
been made by the first respondent under s. 8 of the Act regarding the 
house, the Custodian may dispose of the same in accordance with law. 
Thereafter, the respondents made an application under section 8 of the 
·-/.. 
Ad, and the same was rejected by the Custodian. The appeal against 
E rejection was dismissed by the Custodian General. The respondents 
filed second appeal before the High Court. While declining to interfere 
with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Custodian and the -
Custodian General, the High Court expressed concern over the abuse of 
section 8. The High Court observed that sections 8 and 14 of the Act had 
outlived their utility and directed that the authorities should not in 
\c. 
F 
future entertain any application made under section 8. 
Allowing the appeal filed by the State on the question of continued 
utility of section 8, the Court, 
-~ 
HELD: ( 1) There was no need or necessity for the High Court to 
G have gone into the question whether section 8 bad outlived its utility and 
whether it continued to have relevance. [474B) 
).-· 
(2) Section 8 is closely inter-linked with section 6 of the Act which 
deals with the powers of a Custodian to notify a property as evacuee 
~ 
property under the Act, and as long as section 6 bas relevancy and 
H operative force and in as much as notifications could still be made under 
470 
• -
..... 
,-5_,, 
,:,o 
STATE OF J. & K. v. MAHMOOD AHMED 
471 
.\,-
that section in appropriate cases, section 8 also will have to be retained 
and made use of by genuinely affected parties. [473G-H] 
(3) A portion of the State is still in the hands of an alien Govern-
ment and hence the possibility of a property becoming an evacuee pro-
perty even now is very much there. [473H; 474AJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION: Civil Appeal No. 2395 
'<( of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.88 of the Jammu & 
Kashmir High Court in Second Appeal No. 2 of 1978. 
t 
Altaf Ahmed and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Appellants. 
D.D. Thakur, E.C. Agrawala, Atul Sharma and Miss Pumima 
Bhatt for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
NATARAJAN, J. Leave granted. 
-'v 
Though the High Court has accepted the case of the State and 
dismissed the second appeal preferred by the respondents herein, the 
State has been prompted to file this appeal because of the observations 
made by the High Court that Sections 8 and 14 of the Evacuee 
(Administration of Property) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as to the 
Act) have outlived their purpose and hence the concerned officers of 
. .¥ 
the State need not entertain any applications made in future under 
Section 8 of the Act by persons laying claim to properties which have 
been notified as evacuee'property under the Act. 
To appreciate the grievance of the State over the pronouncement 
of the High Court about the relevancy and operational force of Section 
8 of the Act, a few facts require mention. Respondent No .. 1 claimed to 
be the owner of Evacuee· Property House No. 437 ·situate in Talab 
Khatikan, Jammu and sold the same to respondents 2 and 3 for a total 
consideration of Rs.16,000 under a sale deed dated 12.12.1970. By an 
order dated 5.2.1973, the custodian (third appellant) held that the sale 
was invalid since the property was evacuee property and beldnged to 
one Shah Mahmood who had migrated to Pakistan during the dis-
turbances of 1947 and continued to live there as an evacuee. Against 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
~i 
~-
A 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 
the order of the custodian the respondents preferred ·an .appeal to the 
-...; 
Custodian General (second 

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