EHTRAM ALI AND OTHERS vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND OTHERS
This matter concerns a dispute over the status of land purchased by respondents from Hindu owners, which was subsequently allotted to the petitioners. The respondents successfully sought confirmation of their purchase from the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, who determined the vendors were Pakistani nationals and the transactions were genuine. The petitioners challenged this, alleging the land was evacuee property and that they were denied notice of the confirmation proceedings. The Custodian dismissed the appeal, affirming the land was not evacuee property. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' writ petition, noting a lack of evidence regarding the petitioners' entitlement and the status of the land as evacuee property. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the character of the land was a concluded finding of fact. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioners' grievance regarding the lack of notice was moot, as they had effectively participated in the appellate proceedings where the merits were fully adjudicated. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does the mere fact that a vendor is Hindu automatically render the property 'evacuee property'?
- Can a party claim a lack of notice in confirmation proceedings if they have already participated in an appeal on the merits of that same order?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the character of land, once determined by the Custodian, subject to interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Section 20, Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The land in dispute was purchased by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 by registered sale deed from Hindu owners on 22-10-1947 and 10-5-1949. Mutations in revenue records were effected-in their names. Possession was delivered to them and they have paid. Assessment on the land ever since. Nevertheless this land was allotted to one Ahmad Ali Baig, who, in turn, sold it to petitioners Nos. 2 to 5.. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, thereupon filed an application before the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property under section 20 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act who confirmed the sale as a genuine transaction and further found the vendors as Pakistani Nationals. The order was confirmed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property.
2. ' Later on the petitioners filed an appeal from the order of the Deputy Custodian before the Custodian on the ground that the land was evacuee property and that no notice of the confirmation proceedings was given to them.
3. ' The Custodian ruled out the 2nd ground by relying on the observation of the Court in Ataullah Malik v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property and' others:- "The question whether the title in the property which is vested in the Custodian should be confirmed in favour of a transferee by the Custodian himself would appear to lie exclusively between the-Custodian and the party seeking the confirmation. As has been observed already, the sense of the law which the Custodian is appointed to administer is distinctly favourable to the retention by the Custodian of the property vested in him, and against anything resembling easy divestment."
4. ' On merits, the Custodian of Evacuee Property re-affirmed the earlier. Finding that the vendors were Pakistani Nationals and the sales in favour of respondents Nos, 3 to 5 were genuine transactions. The appeal was accordingly dismissed against which petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court reiterating the same grounds which had been ruled out by the Custodian.
5. ' The writ petition has been dismissed in limine firstly on the ground that the petitioners had not placed on record any document to show that Ehtram Ali, petitioner No, 1 had any entitlement in the land and secondly' that the mere fact that the vendors were Hindus, did not make the land evacuee property. Nor did the petitioners place on record any evidence-- to show that the Hindu owners had, at any stage, migrated to India.
6. In seeking leave to appeal, learned counsel for the petitioners urged vehemently that the Custodian of Evacuee Property had not given notice to the allottees of the land before the sale in favour of respondents Nos. 3 1 to 5 was confirmed. There is little force in the contention as the petitioners, in fact, filed an appeal from the order of Deputy Custodian which was heard and disposed of on merits by the Custodian holding that the land in dispute was not evacuee property.
7. The main issue arising in the petition viz., the character of the land stood concluded by a finding of fact against which the learned counsel bad nothing to urge.
8. ' In the circumstances no exception can be taken to the order passed by the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.