9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 22(b) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 under Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Application of Section 22(b) to the facts of the present case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Section 22(b) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 under Article 14 of the Constitution: The petition under Article 32 challenges the validity of Section 22(b) on the grounds that it contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution. The primary argument presented was that there exists discrimination between an intending evacuee whose property is declared evacuee property under Section 22(b) and an evacuee whose property might be declared evacuee property under Section 2(d)(iv) of the Act, as amended by Act 11 of 1953. The petitioner argued that while an evacuee is entitled to restoration of property under Section 16 of the Act and compensation under Section 13 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, an intending evacuee is denied these benefits. The court observed that persons who transferred assets between August 14, 1947, and October 18, 1949, and those who did so after October 18, 1949, are not similarly circumstanced. The political relations between India and Pakistan were fluid and disturbed immediately after August 14, 1947, but improved by October 18, 1949. Therefore, the legislature could reasonably consider these two groups as distinct classes for the application of the law. The denial of benefits to intending evacuees does not constitute an infringement of the guarantee of equal protection of laws under Article 14. Furthermore, the court noted that the perceived discrimination does not flow directly from Section 22(b) but rather from the legislature's omission to extend the benefits of Section 16 of the 1950 Act and Section 13 of the 1954 Act to intending evacuees. Therefore, Section 22(b) does not contravene Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Application of Section 22(b) to the facts of the present case: Section 22(b) allows the Custodian to declare any property of an intending evacuee to be evacuee property if it is established that the person transferred a substantial portion of his assets to Pakistan between August 14, 1947, and October 18, 1949. The explanation to the section specifies that such a transfer is deemed to be a preparation for migration to Pakistan. In the present case, it was undisputed that Dr. Mohammad Saeed had transferred a substantial portion of his assets to Pakistan before being declared an intending evacuee. The appellant contended that this transfer, having occurred before the declaration, should not be considered under Section 22(b). The court rejected this contention, stating that the transfer of a substantial portion of assets is a relevant circumstance irrespective of whether it occurred before or after the declaration as an intending evacuee. The appellant further argued that the Custodian should consider other circumstances, including the later conduct of the intending evacuee, before declaring the property as evacuee property. The court found that while it may be open to the Custodian to consider other circumstances, the authority to declare property as evacuee property is established once the prescribed circumstances are met. In this case, the transfer of a substantial portion of assets justified the declaration. The High Court's decision to set aside the District Judge's order and direct the Custodian-General to dispose of the matter in accordance with its views was upheld. The court concluded that the Deputy Custodian's declaration of Dr. Mohammad Saeed's property as evacuee property was correct, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. Conclusion: The petition under Article 32 challenging the validity of Section 22(b) was dismissed, and the appeal was also dismissed, upholding the declaration of Dr. Mohammad Saeed's property as evacuee property under Section 22(b) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.
|
