ABDUL HAMID vs CUSTODIAN AND Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a writ petition filed in the High Court challenging the Custodian's order regarding the status of an evacuee property located in Hyderabad. The petitioner had applied for transfer of the property on a CH form, claiming tenancy under an evacuee. After his review application was dismissed by the Custodian following an inquiry, the petitioner filed a constitutional writ petition after a delay of nearly six years. The High Court dismissed the petition on grounds of laches and lack of merit. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that an order under Section 22 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957 remains inoperative without an accompanying restoration order under Section 23 of the same Act. The Supreme Court held that the absence of a Section 23 order does not invalidate an order passed under Section 22. Upholding the High Court's dismissal, the Court affirmed that the writ petition was barred by laches and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Does the absence of an order under Section 23 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957 invalidate an order made under Section 22?
- Can a writ petition filed after an unexplained delay of six years be dismissed on the ground of laches?
- Is an order declared under Section 22 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957 inoperative until restoration of possession is ordered under Section 23?
- Section 22, Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957
- Section 23, Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957
ORDER
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The dispute in this case relates to an evacuee House No. B/22-11177 situated in Advani Lane, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioner claimed that he had taken it on rent from one Ghansham Das Gopaldas Advani, who subsequently became an evacuee. On this ground he claimed to be in possession thereof and also to have paid rent to the Custodian's Department. Subsequently, he applied for the transfer of the property on a CH form.
3. The present petitioner then sought to have the order of the Custodian reviewed. The Custodian in the first instance on the 28th of April 1962 directed the Deputy Custodian to record, evidence and submit a report within two months: The enquiry was actually held by the Additional Custodian who reported on the 31st of January, 1963 that the petitioner was unable to substantiate his claim that the property was an evacuee property. The petitioner was then heard by the Custodian who dismissed the review application on the 14th of June, 1963. The petitioner did nothing until 1969 when he filed Writ Petition No. 74 of 1969 in the High Court of West Pakistan at its Karachi seat challenging the validity of the order of Custodian on the ground that the Custodian had acted without getting a report from the Special Police Estab--lishment in the matter. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the 23rd of February, 1973 holding that it was not only a belated application filed after the expiry of nearly six years or so, but .That it was also without any merit.
4. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that an order under section 22 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, is not operative until and unless an order of restoration of the property has also been made under section 23 of the aforesaid Act.
5. We are informed that proceedings for the enforcement or execution of the order under section 22 are, in fact, going on. This shows that steps had already been taken by Nabi Bakhsh to get the property restored. If he succeeds, the order under section 23 for restoration will automatically follow.
6. The absence of an order section 23 cannot invalidate the order under section 22. If the petitioner has any valid grounds for resisting restoration of possession he should contest the execution proceedings. So far as the writ petition is concerned, we are of the opinion that it was rightly dismissed. It a was hopelessly barred by laches on the part of the petitioner. We see no reason to interfere. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.