2001 (10) TMI 1105 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Ghulam Mohd. evacuee continues to be an evacuee or has died as stated by the appellant and consequently she the appellant becomes the sole heir? Held that - As the allottees/lessees of the evacuee property are necessary parties to the proceedings initiated either under Section 8 or Section 14 and the custodian under the Act performs dual duties of administering the property and adjudicating the claims over the evacuee properties under the Act, we find no fault with the judgment impugned holding that both the allottees as well as the Custodian General had locus to challenge the order of the Special Tribunal. The scope of revisional power under the Act is wider than the powers exercisable in revision petitions filed under the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure and in appropriate cases the revisional authority can go into the questions of fact to decide the legality and propriety of the action taken and for the purposes of giving appropriate directions. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, in the present case, the Custodian General had not committed any error of law by looking into the facts for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether appellant had acquired any interest on the basis of the Will executed by Sardar Begum or the probate issued in his favour. The questions of title with respect to the evacuee property cannot be adjudicated under the Act for which appropriate proceedings are required to be instituted in the civil court. It is further held that with the passage of time Section 8 of the Act has out-lived its utility and has become redundant. No further application under the said section can be entertained and the plea of limitation with respect to the pending disputes has to be decided as per our directions in this judgment. It is hoped that the State Government and the authorities under the Act shall take effective steps to safeguard and protect the properties of the evacuee for whose benefit the Act has been enacted. The judgment of the learned Single Judge 21.8.1991 does not lay good law and the order of the Special Tribunal is not sustainable. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the respondents to challenge the order of the Tribunal.
2. Application of Sardar Begum being barred by time.
3. Revisional jurisdiction of the Custodian General.
4. Effect of probate on the Will executed by Sardar Begum.
5. Applicability of Section 14 to proceedings under Section 8 of the Act.
6. Adjudication of title to evacuee property under the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Locus Standi of the Respondents:
The Supreme Court held that the respondents, including the tenants and the Custodian General, had the locus standi to challenge the order of the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution can be enforced by an aggrieved person, and the respondents had a legal right to remain in possession under the Act. The Court stated, "The allottee of a property, under the Act, cannot be held to be having no right enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." The tenants, being quasi-permanent allottees, had a legal right to challenge any action affecting their possessory interests.

2. Application of Sardar Begum Being Barred by Time:
The Court noted that Sardar Begum's application was filed after the lapse of a significant period, making it potentially barred by limitation. However, the Court declined to non-suit her and the appellant on the ground of limitation due to the absence of an earlier objection on this point. The Court observed, "We decline to non-suit her and the appellant on the ground of limitation."

3. Revisional Jurisdiction of the Custodian General:
The Supreme Court clarified that the revisional powers under Section 30(4) of the Act are broader than those under Section 115 of the CPC. The Custodian General has the authority to examine the legality and propriety of orders, including re-appreciation of evidence. The Court stated, "The revisional powers conferred upon the Custodian General and the custodian under the Act are of wider amplitude."

4. Effect of Probate on the Will Executed by Sardar Begum:
The Court held that while the probate establishes the validity of the Will, it does not automatically confer title to the property if the executant had no right to the property at the time of the Will's execution. The Court observed, "The probate proceedings cannot be equated with the adjudication of the right to succession by the civil court."

5. Applicability of Section 14 to Proceedings Under Section 8 of the Act:
The Court differentiated between Section 8 and Section 14 of the Act, stating that they deal with different situations. Section 8 pertains to claims that the property is not evacuee property, while Section 14 deals with the restoration of property to evacuees or their heirs. The Court stated, "We do not agree that the principle underlying Section 14 is also applicable to the proceedings under Section 8 of the Act as well."

6. Adjudication of Title to Evacuee Property Under the Act:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Act does not supersede the law of succession and that title to property must be established through civil courts. The Court noted, "The questions of title with respect to the evacuee property cannot be adjudicated under the Act for which appropriate proceedings are required to be instituted in the civil court."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the appellant and emphasized the need for protecting evacuee properties as intended by the Act. The Court concluded, "There is no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed but under the circumstances without any order as to costs."

← Previous Next →