TAR MOHAMMED AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 01-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
TAR MOHAMMED AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. 
APRIL 1, 1997 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Sec-
tion 12(2). 
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950: Section 4( 1 ). 
Evacuee PropertyDeclaratio11 of-Notice to appellants to sun·ender 
possessio11-Appella11ts' claim of te11a11cy-Co11tentio11 that disputed property 
was not covered by administration of evacuee property-Held not main-
tainable 011 fact~171ere should be a ~pecific finding by the authorities that 
A 
B 
c 
the appellants had tenancy granted p1ior to August 14, 1947 in their favour D 
and that they remained in occupation under that title as te11ant~171en only 
sub-section (2) of section 12 of Act stands attracted-17zere is 110 such finding 
recorded by the High Cowt in that behalf-In consequence, the alleged right 
to tenancy has no foundation for resisting taking possession of the land. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1393 of E 
1977 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.76 of the Bombay High 
Court in S.C. Application No. 463 of 1970. 
AND 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1394-1400 and 2473 of 1977. 
From the Judgment and order dated 21.12.76 of the Bombay High 
Court in S.C. Application Nos. 369, 373, 383, 386, 428, 524, 526/70 and 525 
F 
of~ 
G 
V. Mohta, V.B. Saharya for the Appellants. 
S.N. Terdol and Balkrishna Gaur (NP) for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
485 
H 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A CA No. 1393177 : 
B 
As per Office Report Respondent No. 11 is dead. Hence, Civil 
Appeal No. 1393/77 having abated is dismissed. 
CA Nos. 1394-1400177 & 2473177. 
These appeals arise from the common judgment of the Bombay High 
Court passed in Special Civil Application No. 369/1970 and batch on 
December 21, 196. One Mohd. Hasham Abdulla was a partner of Mis 
Moula Dina Ayub Firm, Akola which firm owned 689.28 acres of land in 
C Balapur and Akola Taluk of Akola District of Maharashtra. The said 
Mohd. Has4am Abdulla migrated to Pakistan. Consequently, the Deputy 
Custodian on June 21, 1951 declared his 1/4th share as evacuee property. 
Thereafter, it would appear from the record that as per the assertion made 
by the appellants, a partition of the partnership properties took place on 
May 16, 1956 and it was claimed that the said property had fallen to the 
D share of Mohd. Hasham Abdulla. They claimed tenancy rights in the said 
property. Pursuant to the declaration and also action taken under the 
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 [for short, 
the "Act"], the order came to be passed by the Assistant Custodian of the 
Evacuee Property on April 28, 1969 and notice in furtherance thereof was 
E issued on February 9, · 1970 in some cases and on April 23, 1971 in some 
other cases by the Tehsildar directing the appellants to surrender posses-
sion of the property. They challenged the same order in the writ petition. 
Several contentions were raised in the High Cour~ and all have been 
negatived by the High Court. One contention, raised before us by Shri 
Mohta, learned senior counsel for the appellants, is that they remained in 
F 
possession of the property prior to August 14, 1947 as tenants. By operation 
of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act, the tenancy cannot be ter-
minated. The property, therefore, was not free from encumbrances under 
The Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 [for short, the "AEP 
Act"]. As a consequence, the order passed by the Tehsildar and Assistant 
G Custodian Evacuee Property is without jurisdiction and authority of law. It 
also contended that it was subject to encumbrance. Therefore, the view 
taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is not correct in 
law. 
Firstly, we are unable to appreciate the stand t&ken by the appellants 
H for the reason that there.should be a specific finding by the authorities that 
TAR MOHD. v. U.0.I. 
487 
the appellants had tenancy granted by Mohd. Hasham Abdulla prior to A 
August 14, 1947 in their favour and that they remained in occupation under 
that title as tenants. Then only sub-section (2) of Section 12 of Act stands 
attracted. That is no such finding recorded by the High Court in that behalf 
nor any such contention was raised. Their only premise is that they were 
tenants and, therefore, the property was not covered under the AEP Act B 
as . free from encumbrances. That contention,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.