Shankara Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd vs M. Prabhakar & Ors

Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. .............. Appellant

versus

M. Prabhakar & Ors. ..............Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4100 OF 2000, 4101 of 2000

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. .......... OF 2011

(Arising out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 6964 of 2001)

J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, J.

1) We grant leave in the special leave petition filed by the State of

Andhra Pradesh.

1 2) In these civil appeals, we are required to consider essentially the

erstwhile legislations with regard to the administration of property left

behind in India by evacuees migrated to Pakistan during partition and

the compensatory redistribution of the same amongst those persons

who had migrated from Pakistan, leaving behind their property, at the

time of partition.

3) The subject matter are the lands in Survey Nos. 9, 11, 47, 140, 141,

142, 143, 151, 152, 153, 676 and 677, admeasuring about 90.08 acres,

situated at Khapra Village, in the erstwhile Medchal Taluk (now

Vallabhnagar Taluk) of the Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh

[hereinafter referred to as `the disputed lands'].

4) In this batch of three civil appeals, the appellant is the subsequent

purchaser of the property in dispute from the allottees under the

provisions of The Displaced Persons (Compensation and

Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Displaced

Persons Act"). It assails the judgment and order of the Division

Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 17722 of 1990

dated 27.04.2000. The State Government has also filed Special Leave

Petition (c) No. 6964 of 2001 under Article 136 of the Constitution, in

2

defense of the notification which was struck down by the impugned

judgment. Since the facts and questions of law raised before us are the

same in all these civil appeals, we will take up C.A. No. 4099 of 2000,

in the case of Shankara Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. as the lead case

for the purpose of narrating the facts leading upto the impugned

judgement.

5) The facts in extenso require to be noticed. They are:- The

disputed lands originally belonged to one Mandal Bucham, whose

legal representatives are respondents herein. Shri Mandal Bucham

had borrowed paper currency from late Rahim Baksh Khan and since

he failed to discharge the amount due, late Rahim Baksh Khan had

filed a civil suit against Mandal Bucham before the District and

Sessions Judge at Hyderabad District. It appears that the Court had

passed a judgment and decree in favour of late Rahim Baksh Khan. In

the execution proceedings of the decree, it is alleged that late Rahim

Baksh Khan had purchased the disputed lands belonging to Mandal

Bucham in an auction under the supervision of the Court. Rahim

Baksh Khan expired in the year 1940 and later on, it appears, his legal

representatives had migrated to Pakistan after partition of India.

3 6) It is averred that the Deputy Custodian and Collector, Hyderabad

District, had issued notice dated 11.01.1951, to the legal heirs of late

Rahim Baksh Khan, namely Mr. Rafi Mohammed Khan and Mr. Shafi

Mohammed Khan, under sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the

Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 [hereinafter referred to

as "the Evacuee Property Act"] inter alia stating that the "disputed

lands" belonged to late Rahim Baksh Khan and they have migrated to

Pakistan and they are evacuee and, therefore, he would hold an

enquiry in the matter on 27.01.1951 and any person having any share

or interest in the above "disputed lands" are directed to participate in

the proceedings with necessary documents in support of their claim.

It appears that general notices were also published in the village in

which the said lands were situated on 26.01.1951. Notice was also

given to the ancestors of the contesting respondents on 15.02.1951. It

is stated that neither the contesting respondents nor anybody else had

filed any objection to the notice issued under Section 7(1) of the

Evacuee Property Act.

7) After conducting a detailed enquiry in respect to the claim of

ownership of the said property, the Deputy Custodian and Collector

issued a Notification No.55, in NO CE/4064 to 4080 dated

4

11.12.1952, declaring the disputed property in issue as an Evacuee

Property under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act. This

notification was subsequently published in the Hyderabad

Government Gazette. Pursuant to the aforesaid declaration, the name

of the Collector/Custodian was entered in the Revenue Records. After

such declaration, the Central Government has acquired the "disputed

lands" by issuing notification under Section 12 of the Displaced

Persons Act for the rehabilitation of the persons who were displaced

during the partition.

8) The erstwhile owners of the property or the ancestors of the contesting

respondents did not question the declaration of the "disputed lands" as

evacuee property and the subsequent acquisition by the Central

Government. It was on or about in the year 1955, the ancestors of the

respondents herein claimed ownership of the `disputed lands' and

made their representation before the authorities under the Evacuee

Property Act. The authorities, however, had informed them that they

should prefer an appeal or a review petition. In spite of such counsel,

they continued to make representations and petitions in furtherance of

their claim.

5 9) The Tahsildar, Medchal Taluk, issued a letter dated 29.06.1966, inter-

alia, seeking to auction the "disputed lands" on yearly lease basis.

Aggrieved by the action of the authorities, Shri. Mandal Anjaiah,

claiming to be ancestor of the contesting respondents, preferred a writ

petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in No. 1051 of 1966,

inter-alia, seeking a writ of prohibition or direction restraining the

respondents in the petition from auctioning the "disputed lands" and

to direct the authorities to decide the representations/ petitions filed by

the writ petitioner. The Regional Settlement Commissioner/Custodian

of Evacuee property was arrayed as one of the respondents to the

proceedings. In his affidavit dated 21.08.1967, he had averred that the

notice as required under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act read

with Rule 6 of the Rules notices had been issued to all the parties

interested in the disputed lands.

10) During the pendency of the writ petition, a portion of the land was

allotted to one Smt. Eshwari Bai, and therefore, she was impleaded as

one of the respondents in the writ petition. During the pendency of

this writ petition, other contesting respondents had filed a Revision

Petition under Section 27 of the Evacuee Property Act before the

Deputy Custodian General, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi, to revise the

6

notification dated 11.12.1952 declaring the disputed lands as evacuee

property.

11) The writ petition came to be dismissed by the High Court vide its

order dated 14.06.1968 on the ground that the claim of the

respondents is highly belated and they have also not exhausted the

alternate remedy provided under the provisions of the Evacuee

Property Act. The order passed by the Court has some relevance and,

therefore, the same is extracted. It reads :-

"In this application for the issue of a writ under Article

226 of the Constitution, what is sought to be challenged

by the petitioner is an order of the Deputy Custodian of

Evacuee Property under Section 7 of the Administration

of Evacuee Property Act declaring certain properties as

evacuee properties. The notification was made on

11.12.1952. The petitioner did not avail himself of the

remedy provided under Section 24 of the Act by way of

an appeal. In fact, in 1955 and again in 1957 and 1959,

he appears to have approached the Deputy Custodian

with a request that the land should not be treated as

evacuee property and on all these occasions, he was

informed that he should go in appeal and not file review

applications. It is not open to the petitioner without

preferring an appeal, to approach this court at a late

stage with a petition for the issue of a writ. There are no

merits in this writ petition and it is therefore dismissed

with costs."

7

12) After the dismissal of the writ petition, some portion of the lands was

allotted to Shri. Gopaldas and Shri. Jangimal on 15.09.1968 and to

Shri. Mathuradas (legal heir of Shri. Valiram Hiramal) on 21.11.1968.

Sanads (Transfer of Titles and Rights) were also issued to them and

their names were recorded in the revenue records.

13) As we have already noticed, some of the legal representatives of late

Mandal Bucham had approached the Deputy Custodian General, New

Delhi by filing a revision petition under Section 27 of the Evacuee

Property Act, inter alia questioning the notification dated 11.12.1952.

The Deputy Custodian General vide his order dated 25.09.1970, had

allowed the revision petition and remanded the case to Custodian-

cum-Collector, Hyderabad District for re-determination of the evacuee

nature of the lands after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the

parties.

14) After such remand, Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian of Evacuee

Property had conducted a re-enquiry and he had concluded that there

was no evidence to show that late Rahim Baksh Khan came to be the

owner of the land in pursuance of an auction by the Court in execution

of any money decree. Hence, the Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian

8

vide order dated 28.05.1979 came to the conclusion that since there

were no records available to the contrary, Shri. Mandal Bucham and

the other contesting respondents continue to be the owners of the

disputed lands.

15) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the allottees had filed a Revision

Petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner of Evacuee

Property, Hyderabad under the Displaced Persons Act, who, by an

order dated 27.10.1979, had called for the records of the case in order

to review the aforementioned order of the Collector-cum- Deputy

Custodian dated 28.05.1979. It appears that in view of the pendency

of the proceedings, the Tahsildar refused to give possession of the

"disputed lands" to the allottees (who had sanads in their name) in the

light of the aforesaid order of the Collector-cum- Deputy Custodian,

Hyderabad District.

16) The Chief Settlement Commissioner of Evacuee Property, by his

order dated 11.05.1983, set aside the aforesaid order of the Collector-

cum- Deputy Custodian, and declared that the said property belonged

to late Rahim Baksh Khan and that by virtue of the Notification No.

9

55 in NO CE/4064 to 4080 of 1952, the disputed lands are evacuee

property.

17) Once again, the contesting respondents had filed a revision petition

under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Act before the Secretary,

Revenue Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh to revise/review the

aforesaid order, which came to be rejected vide order dated

23.07.1983.

18) The contesting respondents filed a writ petition No. 7517 of 1983

before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, inter alia, requesting the

court to direct the authorities under the Displaced Persons Act to

initiate suo-moto proceedings to determine the claim of ownership of

the disputed lands. The High Court, by its order dated 26.07.1988,

dismissed the writ petition, inter alia holding that it cannot compel any

authority to initiate and dispose of the suo moto proceedings under

Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Act.

19) The contesting respondents filed another Writ Petition No.17722 of

1990 on 13.11.1990 (from which the impugned judgment has arisen)

before the High Court, inter alia requesting the High Court to issue a

writ or order directing the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land

10

Records/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Evacuee Property,

Hyderabad to conduct an enquiry into questions of title of "disputed

lands" and correctness of the declaration of the said property as

evacuee property in pursuance of proceedings of the Chief Settlement

Commissioner dated 27.10.1979. It is relevant to notice that the

contesting respondents did neither seek for the quashing of the

Notification No. 55 in NO CE /4064 to 4080 dated 11.12.1952, nor

made the present appellant a party to the writ proceedings.

Subsequently, on 13.03.1997, the prayer in the writ petition was

sought to be amended to include a prayer to quash the Notification

No. 55 in NO CE 4064 to 4080 dated 11.12.1952, which was allowed

on 27.08.1998. As the present appellant was not made party to the

proceeding, it sought to implead itself by filing an application on

22.01.1999, and the same was allowed on 27.08.1999.

20) By the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2000, the learned Division

Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the

order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 11.05.1983

and restored the order passed by the Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian

of Evacuee Property dated 28.07.1979. Aggrieved by the Judgment

11

and order passed, the appellant-Shankar Co-operative Housing

Society has come before us in these civil appeals.

21) The subject matter of the Civil Appeal No. 4100 of 2000 pertains to

the lands in Survey No. 152 admeasuring about 13.17 acres. These

lands were originally allotted to Mathura Das on 26.11.1968,

Subsequently, Mathura Das has executed General Power of Attorney

(GPA), in favour of P.H. Hasanand and Chandumal dated 19.12.1966.

Before us, the appellant -P.H. Hasanand as General Power of

Attorney Holder of the late Mathura Das (who died on 30.5.1970) is

assailing the Judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High

Court in W.P. 17722 of 1990 dated 27.4.2000. It is relevant to

mention that the Special Leave Petition filed by Mathura Das through

his legal representatives has been dismissed by an order made by this

Court dated 13.8.2007 on the ground of delay.

22) The subject matter in Civil Appeal No. 4101 of 2000 pertains to lands

in Survey nos. 9,11,140,142,143,676 and 677, admeasuring about

20.27 acres. These lands were originally allotted to Smt. Eswari Bai

on 30.11.1966. During her life time, she had executed a General

Power of Attorney in favour of Thakur Hadanani on 06.08.1999.

12 During the pendency of the appeal, Smt. Eswari Bai expired. The

application filed by Thakur Hadanani to bring legal representatives of

Smt. Eswari bai was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated

30.03.2010 as General Power of Attorney holder of deceased has no

locus- standi to file the appeal. In this appeal, the appellants before us

are (1) P. Laxmi Patni, who is the son-in-law of P.M. Rao; (2) Vidya

Devi, legal representative of Seetha Devi wife of Gopal Das and (3)

Thakur Das is minor and represented by Smt. Vidya Devi.

23) One of the appellants before us is a co-operative society, styled as

Shankara Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as `the

society']. The said society has 600 members who are Government

employees. The society has purchased the lands in disputes from the

General Power of Attorney holders of three of the original allottees,

namely, Shri. Gopaldas, Shri. Jangimal and Shri. Mathuradas, by

paying the entire sale consideration. It is asserted that the Society,

after obtaining permission from the competent authorities, has allotted

residential plots carved out of the "disputed lands" to its members.

24) We have heard Shri. P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel and Shri.

C. Mukund, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri. Ranjit

13

Kumar and Shri. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel for the

respondents. The State of Andhra Pradesh is represented by Shri. T.V.

Ratnam, learned counsel.

25) Shri. C. Mukund, learned counsel who appears for the appellants in

C.A. No. 4100 of 2000 and C.A. No. 4101 of 2000, submits apart

from others, that the delay and laches on the part of the contesting

respondents in approaching various authorities for redressal of their

grievances, would disentitle them to claim any reliefs. It is submitted

that repeated representations filed before the authorities would not be

a ground to condone the delay and it is further submitted that there is

inordinate delay in filing the writ petition from the date of notification

issued under the Evacuee Property Act; the claim of the respondents is

barred by principles of constructive Resjudicata since in the writ

petition filed by the respondents before Andhra Pradesh High Court,

the plea of non-service of notice on the interested persons while

declaring the said lands as an evacuee property was not raised, though

it was available to them; that the question of facts as to title of the

said lands, etc., could not have been gone into by the High Court in its

writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution; and that since

the "disputed lands" have already been acquired under the Displaced

14 Persons Act, the contesting respondents cannot have any right, title

and interest over those lands.

26) While elaborating the issues raised, Shri. Mukund, learned counsel,

submits that right from the beginning, the contesting respondents have

either approached the authorities under the Evacuee Property Act or

approached the judicial forums belatedly, or have gone before the

wrong forum seeking either incorrect or incomplete reliefs. He

submits that the competent authority under the Evacuee Property Act

had not only issued the individual notices to the evacuee but also

public notice was also issued on 26.01.1951. He further states that the

ancestors of the contesting respondents were served with a notice

dated 15.02.1951. He also submits that there can be no dispute that

the "disputed lands" belonged to late Rahim Baksh Khan, as his name

was recorded in the land revenue records. He further submits that

there was no challenge to the declaration of the lands as evacuee

property upto the year 1955, and for the next 11 years, upto 1966, the

contesting respondents made only repeated representations to the

authorities, without approaching the proper judicial forum provided

under the Evacuee Property Act. He further asserts, that even in 1966,

when the first writ petition was filed, the only prayer that was made

15

was to set aside the action of the Tahsildar seeking to auction the

lands for granting Ek saala lease and not to quash the Notification No.

55 dated 11.12.1952, which had declared the disputed lands as

evacuee property. He points out that there was no averment in the

writ petition filed in the year 1966 regarding non-service of the notice,

which is one of the principal grounds taken by the contesting

respondents in the subsequent writ petition. Shri. Mukund further

asserts that at no point of time prior to the 1997 amendment to the

impugned writ petition, a challenge was made to the Notification No.

55 dated 11.12.1952, declaring the lands as evacuee property. He then

referred to the counter affidavit filed by the State Government before

the High Court in the 1966 writ petition which states that the

contesting respondents were in possession of the land on the basis of

Ek Saala or annual lease for the purpose of cultivation, and they had

not paid the lease amount, and when their eviction was being

attempted, they claimed ownership. Subsequently, even after the

dismissal of the 1966 writ petition, Shri. Mukund submits that the

contesting respondents again did not pursue the correct remedies after

the 1983 order. In summation, Shri. Mukund contends that the

contesting respondents did not take any steps from the time the notice

16

was issued [period between 1951 to 1955], after which they made

repeated representations to the authorities, which came to be rejected

[period between 1955 to 1959] and then filed the writ petition in 1966

[without doing anything for 7 years for the period between 1959 to

1966]. After this, he states even pursuant to the 1983 Order, again

they did not follow the correct course, till the filing of the writ petition

in the year 1990. Even when the writ petition was filed, the

notification declaring the said lands as evacuee property was not

challenged. In other words, Shri. Mukund asserts that every time the

contesting respondents raised their voice in protest, they did it before

a wrong forum or seeking the wrong or incomplete reliefs.

27) The learned counsel further submits that a person who seeks

intervention of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution should

give satisfactory explanation of his failure to assert his claim at an

earlier date. The excuse for his procrastination should find a place in

the petition submitted by him and the facts relied upon by him should

be set out clearly in the body of the petition. An excuse that the

contesting respondents were making repeated representations before

various forums cannot merit serious consideration. In aid of his

submission, the learned counsel has invited our attention to the

17

observations made by this court in City and Industrial Development

Cooperation Vs. Dosu Andershir Bhiwandiwala and Anr. (2009) 1

SCC 168 (Paras 26-30), S. S. Balu and Another Vs. State of Kerala

and others (2009) 2 SCC 479(Para 17), New Delhi Municipal

Council Vs. Pan Singh and others (2007) 9 SCC 278 (paras 17-18)

and K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty & Anr. Vs. State of Mysore and Anr.

(1967) 2 SCR 70.

28) In support of his second submission, Shri. Mukund invites our

attention to the judgment and order in Writ Petition No.1051 of 1966

dated 14.06.1968 and submits that the same had been decided not only

on merits but also on the ground that the writ petitioners had not

availed the alternate remedy available under the Act. Alternatively,

the learned counsel contends that non-service of notice as required

under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act and the Rules framed

thereunder was not raised, though the same was available to the

contesting respondents and therefore, they could not have been

permitted to take that plea in the subsequent writ petition filed.

Therefore, subsequent writ petition from which, the present appeal

arises, is barred by the principles analogous to res judicata. In aid of

his submission, our attention is drawn to the decisions of this court in

18 Thakore Sobhey Singh Vs. Thakur Jai Singh and others (1968) 2 SCR

848, Mohan lal Goenka Vs. Beney Krishan Mukher Jee and others

(1953) SCR 377 and Shashivraj Gopalji Vs. Ed. Appakath Ayissa and

others 1949 PC 302.

29) Leaned counsel Shri. Mukund further urged that it is settled law

that the fact finding task undertaken by the High Court, which is

evident from the impugned judgment, is not warranted in a writ

petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He

attempts to make good his argument by reading out passages from the

impugned judgment, and attempts to impress upon us that the

prolixity of the judgment clearly showed that the questions of fact had

been gone into by the High Court while granting reliefs to the

respondents. This, according to the learned counsel, is impermissible.

In aid of his submission, the learned counsel has invited our attention

to the observations made by this Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai

Vs. Ramchander Rai and others (2003) 6 SCC 675, Ranjeet Singh Vs.

Ravi Prakash (2004) 3 SCC 682 and Karnataka State Industrial

Investment and Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cavalet India Ltd.

and others (2005) 4 SCC 456.

19 30) Shri. Mukund submits that once the `disputed lands' are

acquired under the Displaced Persons Act and allotted to the displaced

persons, the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property will have no

jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings under the Evacuee Property

Act. He submits that the object of the two legislations are such that

the Evacuee Property Act enabled that Government to first identify

property as evacuee property and notify the same, after which, the

Government would acquire such property under the Displaced Persons

Act and distribute the same to the displaced persons. He contended,

once such acquisition and redistribution take place under the

Displaced Persons Act, the Deputy Custodian loses all his jurisdiction

under the Evacuee Property Act to deal with the evacuee property. In

other words, he contends that once property was distributed under the

Displaced Persons Act to the displaced persons, it loses its evacuee

status, and the status of such land had attained finality, and the same

cannot be challenged. Reference is made to the observation of this

court in the case of Major Gopal Singh and Others Vs. Custodian

Evacuee Property (1962) 1 SCR 328, Basant Ram Vs. Union of India

(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 733 and Defedar Niranjan Singh and another Vs.

Custodian Evacuee Property and another (1962) 1 SCR 214.

20 31) Shri Mukund assails the judgment and order of the High Court

as perverse on the ground: (a) that the High Court has not taken into

consideration the fact that the contesting respondents had taken the

lands on an Ek Saala lease, for which they defaulted in making

payment; (b) that the High Court had completely overlooked the

Order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated

11.05.1983; (c) that the plea of notice, not being served, was not taken

in the writ petition filed in the year 1966. Therefore, it was not open

for the contesting respondents to raise such contention in the

subsequent proceedings.

32) With regard to the question of non-service of notice, Shri. Mukund

would contend that if the contesting respondents were in possession of

the said lands, as claimed by them, they cannot plead that they were

not served with the notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of

the Evacuee Property Act. He further submits that the conduct of the

contesting respondents cannot be brushed aside and had a very vital

bearing on this case. He also points out that the revenue records

produced by the State Government before the High Court would show

late Rahim Baksh Khan as the owner of the property, a fact that was

overlooked by the High Court in the impugned judgment.

21 33) Shri. P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel appearing for the

Society, prefaces his submission with the purpose and object behind

the enactment of the Evacuee Property Act and the Displaced Persons

Act. He contends that property that was acquired under the Evacuee

Property Act as evacuee property was redistributed to displaced

persons for a consideration, and that the sanads issued were actually

sale deeds. He further states that there were no prohibition/restriction

in the sanads for alienation of the property under the provisions of the

Displaced Persons Act and, therefore, gave finality to question of

ownership of the lands. While adopting the submissions of Shri.

Mukund, the learned senior counsel would contend that once the

Displaced Persons Act comes into operation, the operation of the

Evacuee Property Act comes to an end. He further emphasized that

the contesting respondents could not be permitted to take advantage of

their own wrongs, especially when third party rights had already been

created. He also urged that the subsequent writ petition filed by the

contesting respondents should have been dismissed by the High Court

for the same reason for which earlier writ petition was dismissed

inasmuch as the cause of action in both the petitions being the same,

22

the subsequent writ petition would be barred by the principles

analogous to res judicata.

34) Shri. T.V. Ratnam, learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra

Pradesh, submits that the Evacuee Property Act is a complete code by

itself, with a mechanism to deal with the question of evacuee nature of

the property. He states that once it is decided by the Custodian, in

exercise of his powers under the Act, that the property was an evacuee

property, then it was not available for challenge in a writ petition filed

under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such declaration can be

questioned only by filing either an appeal or revision, as provided

under the Act. He further states that the contesting respondents did not

follow the procedure prescribed under the Act. Even when the

Revision filed by them was rejected by the Custodian, the same was

never challenged. The learned counsel pointed out in the pahani

pathra or revenue records that persons other than the contesting

respondents were also in possession of the land, along with Shri.

Mandal Anjaiah, and states that this possession was in pursuance of

the Ek Saala lease that was granted in their favour. The learned

counsel points out that the revenue records would clearly prove that it

is the Custodian who was the owner and in possession of the lands in

23

dispute. He also emphasized that there was inordinate delay in

challenging the notification dated 11.12.1952 and the High Court

ought not to have entertained the writ petition filed in the year 1990

and unsettle the settled things.

35) Per contra, Shri. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel, submitted that

though late Rahim Baksh Khan had a money decree in his favour

against Shri. Mandal Bucham, an ancestor of the contesting

respondents, the same was never executed. He further states that there

was no warrant for execution against the disputed lands in favour of

late Rahim Baksh Khan. He submits that there is nothing on record to

show how the rights of the contesting respondents got extinguished. It

is his further submission that a proper enquiry, as required under

Evacuee Property Act, was not conducted with regard to the nature of

the lands. He submits that from the records, it can be made out that

the Collector was informed by the Tahsildar that the lands in question

were in the name of Mandal Bucham. He also states, that the

requirements of personal notice as per Rule 6 of the Administration of

Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as `the

EP Rules'] were not complied with. He also states that the contesting

24

respondents have always been in possession of the said lands, as

admitted by the Government, in its counter affidavit.

36) With regard to the question of delay and laches which was the

forefront of the submission of Shri. Mukund, learned counsel, he

submits that the contesting respondents, who were poor and illiterate

farmers, have been continuously making representations and filing

petitions before the various authorities, from the time they had the

knowledge of the status of the property being declared as evacuee till

the filing of the writ petition in 1966. He further states that since they

were in possession of the land, when they came to know that the said

lands were being auctioned, they moved the High Court under Article

226 of the Constitution, without further delay. He contends that there

were no third party rights at least till 1966, and that the contesting

respondents were in possession of the lands and were cultivating the

same, and when their possession was threatened, they moved the High

Court for appropriate reliefs. It is further submitted that the High

Court has merely disposed of the writ petition filed only on the ground

that the petitioners therein had not exhausted alternate remedy

available to them under the Evacuee Property Act.

25 37) Shri. Ranjit Kumar further submits that the lands allotted to Shri.

Gopal Das and Shri. Jangimal that were made in 1968, and were

cancelled by the Custodian, as the two allotees did not come forward

to take possession of the same, vide order dt. 21.11.1987. With regard

to the lands allotted to Shri. Mathuradas, the learned senior counsel

would submit that this Court, by an order dt. 13.08.2007, dismissed

the Special Leave Petition filed by the legal representatives of Shri.

Mathuradas against the impugned judgment, on the ground of delay,

as well as on merits.

38) The learned senior counsel then drew our attention to the revision

undertaken by an order of the Dy. Custodian General in the year 1970,

who found that Shri. Mandal Bucham was the pattedar and that the

status of the lands required enquiry as there was no evidence to the

claim that late Rahim Baksh Khan had purchased the said lands in an

auction, as claimed by the appellants. Since the question of title was

involved, the matter was rightly remanded back to the Collector-cum-

Dy. Custodian, who, vide order dt. 28.05.1979, came to the

conclusion that the lands were owned by the ancestors of the

contesting respondents and the revenue records support their case.

26 39) The learned senior counsel also submits that the Order passed by the

Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 11.05.1983 is manifestly

illegal, as the Collector-cum-Dy. Custodian, was not one of those

authorities whose order could have been revised by the Chief

Settlement Commissioner in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section

24 of the Displaced Persons Act. Since the powers conferred under

the aforesaid Section is only to revise those orders passed by the

officers notified under the provisions of Displaced Persons Act.

Therefore, it is argued that the said order is one without jurisdiction.

40) Shri. Ranjit Kumar rebuts the claim of the appellants that notice was

served on the contesting respondents. He states that notice could not

have been served on legal heirs of late Rahim Baksh Khan, who were

in Pakistan, and were unlikely to come back; no notice was issued to

the contesting respondents. On a query from the bench regarding as to

why the contesting respondents held an Ek Saala lease if they owned

the property, he submits that there was absolutely no record to show

that the rights of the contesting respondents had been extinguished.

He further submits in rebuttal to the contention of the appellants of

pursuing the wrong remedies, by stating that a writ petition under

Article 226 was the only remedy available, as Section 36 of the

27

Displaced Persons Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts. He also

states that the argument of the appellants that once the lands are

acquired by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons Act,

the property ceases to be evacuee property and becomes the property

of the Central Government, depends on the factor that the property is

notified as evacuee property after following the due procedure

prescribed under the Evacuee Property Act and the Rules framed

thereunder. He further urged that if the property in question is not

evacuee property, there is no question of the coming into operation of

the Displaced Persons Act.

41) Shri. Ranjit Kumar further submits that the appellants are not the

original allottees and they are only subsequent purchasers, from the

general power of attorney (`GPA') holders of the original allottees. In

some cases, he contends, the GPA holders have sold the property after

the death of the principal, and in other cases, GPA holders of GPA

holders of original allottees have sold the lands and in both cases, he

submits that the same is impermissible in law. He further contends

that the allotment to Shri. Gopal Das and Shri. Jangimal was cancelled

in the year 1989, the Special Leave Petition of Shri. Mathuradas had

been dismissed in the year 2007, and that this Court had disallowed

28

the substitution of the legal heirs of Smt. Eshwari Bai, on her death,

due to which appellants cannot maintain these proceedings.

42) In summing up his contention, the learned senior counsel states that

the Notification dated 11.12.1952 issued under sub-Section (1) of

Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act was manifestly illegal and the

disputed lands could not have been declared as evacuee property, as

the owners were not evacuee; that the argument of delay and laches

was not available to the appellants, as the original allottees who had

claimed that they weren't made a party have been heard at all stages

right from the first writ petition in the year 1966; that the question of

Ek Saala lease cannot be put against the respondents as the name of

the contesting respondents was recorded in the Revenue records as

owner of the lands; that the proceedings under the Displaced Persons

Act can take place only if the proceedings under the Evacuee Property

Act are validly made; that the proceedings under Section 24 of the

Displaced Persons Act culminating in the order of Chief Settlement

Commissioner in the year 1983 is illegal, for the reason it can be done

only of those orders passed by the officers notified in Section 24 of

the Act, and that the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner is

without jurisdiction and hence is a nullity; that the High Court could

29

correct any manifest illegality, such as declaring the disputed lands as

evacuee property, under its writ jurisdiction, which need not be

interfered with by this Court under Article 136; that the disputed

questions of fact had to be necessarily gone into by the High Court

under its writ jurisdiction due to the bar of jurisdiction of other Courts

by virtue of Section 36 of the Displaced Persons Act; that the

contesting respondents were in possession of the lands and continues

to be so even till this day and this position is accepted by the State

Government in the counter affidavit filed before this court; assuming

that there was some delay on the part of the contesting respondents for

redressal of their grievances before various forums, since the same has

been condoned by the writ court, this court need not interfere with the

said order.

43) Shri. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel who appears for the

contesting respondents in the Special Leave Petition filed by the State,

supplemented the arguments of Shri. Ranjit Kumar. He also submitted

that the only issue was whether the nature of the property was such

that it fell within the ambit of evacuee property or not. He also

submits that if the facts were not gone into by the High Court, there

could be no decision on this aspect, and once this aspect was decided

30

in favour of the contesting respondents, then nothing remains to be

decided by this Court.

44) The learned counsel have referred to several case laws for the many

propositions they have canvassed before us. The relevance of these

decision we will deal with at appropriate stage.

45) In the background of these facts, the following questions arise for our

consideration and decision:

(1) Whether the contesting respondents have been guilty of

delay and laches.

(2) Whether the dismissal of the writ petition No. 1051 of

1966 by the High Court decided the matter fully and

finally.

(3) Whether the lands in question are evacuee property as

defined under the Evacuee Property Act.

(4) What is the effect and the consequence of the notification

issued under Section 12(1) of the Displaced Persons Act.

(5) Whether the High Court could have gone into the facts

under its writ jurisdiction.

46) Re : Delay and Laches : - Delay and laches is one of the factors that

requires to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise

their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. In an appropriate case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its

31

extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the

part of the applicant to assert his rights taken in conjunction with the

lapse of time and other circumstances. The Privy Council in Lindsay

Petroleum Company Vs. Prosper Armstrong Hurd etc; (1874) 5 PC

221 at page 229, which was approved by this Court in Moon Mills

Ltd. Vs. Industrial Courts AIR 1967 SC 1450 and Maharashtra State

Road Transport Corporation Vs. Balwant Regular Motor Service AIR

1969 SC 329, has stated :-

"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an

arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be

practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the

party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly

be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by

his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not

waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a

situation in which it would not be reasonable to place

him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in

either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most

material. But in every case, if an argument against relief,

which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere

delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any

statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be

tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two

circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the

length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during

the interval, which might affect either party and cause a

balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or

the other, so far as relates to the remedy."

32

47) In Amrit Lal Berry Vs. CCE (1975) 4 SCC 714, this Court took the

view that "if a petitioner has been so remiss or negligent as to

approach the Court for relief after an inordinate and unexplained

delay, he certainly jeopardises his claims as it may become

inequitable, with circumstances altered by lapse of time and other

facts, to enforce, a fundamental right to the detriment of similar

claims of innocent third persons."

48) In State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683, this Court

observed that "unless the facts and circumstances of the case at hand

clearly justify the laches or undue delay, writ petitioners are not

entitled to any relief against any body including the State."

49) In Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 274, this Court opined

that "the High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to

the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and

public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ

jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the

effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also

injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ

jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of

33

third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also

weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise

such jurisdiction."

50) In City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir

Bhinandiwala and others (supra), this court held :-

"It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that

under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a

High Court to issue appropriate writs particularly a writ of

Mandamus is highly discretionary. The relief cannot be

claimed as of right. One of the grounds for refusing relief is

that the person approaching the High Court is guilty of

unexplained delay and the laches. Inordinate delay in moving

the court for a Writ is an adequate ground for refusing a

Writ. The principle is that courts exercising public law

jurisdiction do not encourage agitation of stale claims and

exhuming matters where the rights of third parties may have

accrued in the interregnum."

51) Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for contesting respondents,

invites our attention to the observations made by this court in the case

of State of M.P. and others Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others (1986) 4

SCC 566, wherein this court has stated "this rule of laches or delay is

not a rigid rule which can be cast in a straitjacket formula, for there

may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights

the High Court may still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and

34

grant relief to the petitioner. But, such cases where the demand of

justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to

interfere inspite of delay or creation of third party rights would by

their very nature be few and for between. Ultimately it would be a

matter within the discretion of the Court ex-hypotheses every

discretion must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice

and not to defeat it."

52) Reliance is also placed on the observations made by this Court in M/s

Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd. Vs. District Board,

Bhojpur and others (1992) 2 SCC 598, wherein it is observed :

"The rule which says that the Court may not enquire into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts. It will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how delay arose. The principle on which the relief to the party on the grounds of laches or delay is denied is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test to determine delay in such cases is that the petitioner should come to the writ court before a parallel right is created and that the lapse of time is not attributable to any laches or negligence. The test is not to physical running of time. Where the circumstances justifying the conduct exists, the illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches."

35

53) The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches

should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under

Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are: (1)

there is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the

court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of

practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each

case must be dealt with on its own facts. (2) The principle on which

the court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the

rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not

be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay,

because court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had

emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The

satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under

Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief

elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not

provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the

High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner

chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard and fast rule,

can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided

36

on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate

explanation to take care of the delay.

54) Let us now advert to the contentions canvassed by learned counsel in

this regard. Mr. Mukund, learned counsel for the appellants,

submitted that the contesting respondent during the period 1951 till

1955, had not taken any steps for redressal of their grievance, if any,

including challenging the notification issued by the competent

authority under the Evacuee Property Act dated 11.12.1952. He

further submits that from 1955 till 1959, the contesting respondents

were making representations before forums which could not have

given them reliefs. In spite of the counsel of the authorities that they

should file either appeal or revision against the notification issued

under the Evacuee Property Act, they did not resort to those remedies.

It is further contended that from the period 1959 till 1966, they did not

choose to approach any authorities nor took any judicial action. The

learned counsel submits that for the first time, they approached the

High Court by filing the writ petition some time in the year 1966,

inter-alia, claiming the relief of certiorari to quash the action of the

authorities for auction of the acquired lands under the Displaced

Persons Act for grant of Ek saala lease, but, at the time of hearing of

37

the petition, they advanced a new case by contending that an

appropriate writ requires to be issued to quash the notification issued

under the Evacuee Property Act. It is further submitted that the High

Court refused to grant the relief on the ground of delay and laches in

approaching the court for quashing the notification of the year 1952

and further on the ground that the writ petitioner has not availed the

alternate remedies provided under the Evacuee Property Act. The

learned counsel submits by this order that the writ court has given a

finding that at a belated stage, the writ petitioner cannot challenge the

notification issued on 11.12.1952 under the provisions of the Evacuee

Property Act. The learned counsel further submits that after disposal

of the writ petition, the contesting respondents had approached forums

which could not have entertained their claim nor could have granted

any relief. It is further submitted even assuming that the respondents

were knocking at the doors of the wrong forum, the same should not

be held against them, may not come to their aid, since the third party

rights are created by allotment of the Evacuee Property to the

Displaced Persons under the Displaced Persons Act. He further

submits that though the writ petition filed by one of the contesting

respondents was dismissed by the writ court, the other contesting

38

respondents suppressing the filing of the writ petition and its

dismissal, had filed a revision petition under Section 27 of the

Evacuee Property Act before the Deputy Custodian General, New

Delhi sometime in the year 1967 inter-alia questioning the

Notification dated 11.12.1952 declaring the `disputed lands' as

Evacuee Property. Though they succeeded before that authority, the

same was short lived and the said order was revised by the Chief

Settlement Commissioner at the instance of the allottees by his order

dated 11.05.1983. The learned counsel further submits that instead of

questioning the said order before a proper forum, they approached the

State Government to revise the order by the Chief Settlement

Commissioner and when the revision petition was returned, they

approached the High Court by filing a writ petition to direct the State

Government to invoke its power of `Suo-Moto' revision, which came

to be rejected on 26.07.1988. Therefore, the learned counsel submits

that the time spent from 1983 till 1988 cannot be considered to be

satisfactory explanation since they were seeking reliefs not in a

manner provided by the law. The learned counsel submits that after

about two years of the dismissal of the writ petition, they filed yet

another Writ Petition No.17722 of 1990, inter-alia, seeking initially a

39

direction to respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry into the question

of title of disputed lands and also the correctness of the declaration of

the said property as evacuee property, and again after almost seven

years of filing of the writ petition, an amendment was sought for

quashing the Notification dated 11.12.1952. Therefore, the High

Court ought not have entertained the writ petition in view of the

inordinate and unexplained delay.

55) Shri. Ranjit Kumar contends that the contesting respondents were and

are in continuous physical possession of the lands and it is only when

their possession was threatened in the year 1966 by the Tahsildar for

auctioning the lands to grant Ek saala lease, they had approached the

High Court and prior to that, they were making representations before

the authorities for redressal of their grievance. The learned senior

counsel submits that the appellants have not placed any material

before this Court that the contesting respondents were dispossessed

from their lands and an inference should be drawn in favour of the

respondents. He also submits that though Sanads were given to the

allottees, they were never put in possession of the property. He states

that even the Sanads so granted were cancelled on a later date since

the allottee could not take possession of lands. It is also contended

40

that if there is any delay, it could only be after the Chief Settlement

Commissioner had allowed the revision petition filed by the allottees

by setting aside the earlier order passed by the Deputy Custodian in

the year 1979. He further submits that the contesting respondent

thereafter had approached the State Government to initiate its suo-

moto revisional powers to revise the order passed by the Chief

Settlement Commissioner and since that was not done, they

immediately filed a writ petition for appropriate direction and the said

writ petition was disposed of only in the year 1988 and immediately

thereafter, they had approached the High Court by filing a writ

petition for appropriate reliefs. Therefore, he submits that firstly,

there was no delay or laches on the part of the contesting respondents

in approaching the authorities for redressal of their grievances,

secondly, assuming there is some delay, the same has been

satisfactorily explained and lastly, when there was manifest illegality

in the proceedings of the authorities both under the Evacuee Property

Act and the Displaced Persons Act, the same has been corrected by

the learned Division Bench of the High Court and this Court need not

disturb the finding of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction

under Article 136 of the Constitution.

41 56) Since this issue requires to be answered in the light of the pleadings of

the contesting respondents in the writ petition filed by them before the

High Court, it is desirable firstly to notice what was their explanation

pleaded in approaching the writ court nearly after 28 years from the

date of the notification issued under the Evacuee Property Act. We

have carefully scanned through the pleadings in the writ petition and

also the application filed for amendment nearly after eight years from

the date of filing of the writ petition. There is no explanation, much

less satisfactory explanation except a very casual statement in para 4

of the petition. Therein, it is said:

"4. That in the meanwhile, there have been various

proceedings whereunder the petitioners repeatedly

knocking the doors of various authorities challenging

the very correctness of the proceedings treating the

petitioners' lands as evacuee. However, no attempt was

made to go to root of the case and to find out, if really

said Rahim Bux or his family at time had any title, right

or interest to be declared as evacuee. For no fault, the

petitioners are sought to be deprived of their legitimate

rights, without any justification or valid reason."

57) In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.13 (Shankar Co-

operative Society), they had specifically contended "that the writ

petition is time barred and on the ground of latches, the writ petition is

bound to be dismissed. The petitioners are seeking quashing the order

42

or notification of the year 1952 and an order of the quasi-judicial

authority of the year 1983 and of 1990 [Para 2(d)]. In para 23 of the

counter affidavit, they had also asserted, "that the petitioners have

referred to various representations alleged to have been made to the

respondent authorities from time to time on various dates reflected in

the petition. They did not choose to file copies of all representations.

On the other hand, it is reliably learnt that it is falsely made and such

representations are filed."

58) The High Court, in the course of its judgment and order, notices the

specific allegations made by the respondents in their counter affidavit

filed and the contention of the learned counsel in regard to delay and

laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Court.

59) While answering the aforesaid stand of the respondents in the writ

petition, the Division Bench of the High Court refers to several orders

passed by the authorities and then observes that "from what is

narrated above, the petitioners cannot be found fault with for any

inaction or lapse and they had been waging tireless legal battle since

last 45 years. Further, they did not leave any chance in the

litigation." Beyond this, the High Court has not stated anything with

43

regard to the explanation offered by the petitioner in approaching the

Court, even according to them, nearly after 45 years. The High Court

has not recorded any finding whatsoever and ignored such a plea of

far-reaching consequence.

60) In the present case, the respondents in the writ petition had raised a

specific plea of delay, as a bar to grant relief to the petitioners. In our

view, it was perhaps necessary for the Court to have specifically dealt

with this issue. It is now well settled that a person who seeks the

intervention of the High Court under Article 226, should give a

satisfactory explanation of his failure to assert his claim at an earlier

date. The excuse for procrastination should find a place in the petition

filed before the Court and the facts relied upon by him should be set

out clearly in the body of the petition. An excuse that he was

agitating his claims before authorities by making repeated

representations would not be satisfactory explanation for condoning

the inordinate delay in approaching the Court. If a litigant runs after a

remedy not provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it cannot be a

satisfactory explanation for condoning the delay in approaching the

Court.

44 61) On this issue, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties in

great detail, since the immoveable property rights of the parties are

involved. In our considered view, there is no explanation, much less

satisfactory explanation offered by the respondents in approaching the

writ court after an inordinate delay of nearly 15 years from the date of

the notification issued under the Evacuee Property Act. For the delay

from 1952 to 1955, the contesting respondents would only submit that

they were not aware of the notification issued under the Evacuee

Property Act, since no notice was served on them, though a public

notice was issued by the authority under the Evacuee Property Act.

While explaining the delay of nearly eleven years from 1955 to 1966,

they contend that they were in possession of the property and they

were making representations before the authorities under the Evacuee

Property Act for redressal of their grievance. The delay after the

orders were passed by the Settlement Commissioner in the year 1983

till the writ petition was filed in the year 1990, it is explained that they

had moved the State Government to suo-moto revise the order passed

by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and since the State

Government returned their request, they had approached the High

Court to issue directions to the State Government to issue appropriate

45

directions. In our considered view, at every stage, there was

inordinate delay in approaching the authorities for redressal of their

grievance. As rightly contended by Shri. Mukund, learned counsel,

even when they approached the authorities, they were claiming wrong

reliefs or incomplete reliefs. Even when they filed the writ petition in

the year 1990, they did not choose to question the correctness of the

notification issued under the Evacuee Property Act but was

questioned by way of filing an amendment application in the year

1998. There is some merit in the submission made by learned counsel

for the contesting respondents that the petitioners in their pleadings

before the writ court, had not even offered any explanation, much less

satisfactory explanation, in approaching the court nearly after three

decades from the date of notification issued under the Evacuee

Property Act. It is now well settled that the power of the High Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue an appropriate writ,

order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse relief

by a writ court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches.

Inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the court in a writ is

indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in

favour of the petitioners therein. The unexplained delay on the part of

46

the petitioner in approaching the High Court for redressal of their

grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution was sufficient to

justify rejection of the petition. The other factor the High Court

should have taken into consideration that during the period of delay,

interest has accrued in favour of the third party and the condonatoin of

unexplained delay would affect the rights of third parties. We are also

of the view that reliance placed by Shri Ranjit Kumar on certain

observations made by this Court would not assist him in the facts and

circumstances of this case. While concluding on this issue, it would

be useful to refer the observations made by the Court in the case of

Municipal Council Vs. Shaha Hyder Baig (2002) 2 SCC 48, wherein it

is stated that `delay defeats equity and that the discretionary relief of

condonation can be had, provided one has not given by his conduct,

given a go by to his rights'.

62) Re: Effect of the judgment and order of the High Court in W.P.

No. 1051 of 1966:-

While narrating the facts, we have referred to the judgment and

order of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1051 of 1966 dated

14.06.1968. The relief that was sought for by the petitioner therein

47

was to issue a writ or direction restraining the respondents from

auctioning the lands in pursuance of the letter of Tahsildar, Medchal

dated 29.6.1966. However, the High Court while dismissing the Writ

Petition, specifically has observed that what was challenged by the

petitioner in the Writ Petition was the order passed by the Deputy

Custodian of Evacuee property under Section 7 of the Evacuee

Property Act declaring certain properties as evacuee properties. The

Court specifically notices the notification dated 11.12.1952 issued by

the authorities under the Evacuee Property Act and observes that the

petitioner had not availed the remedy provided under Section 24 of

the Act, by way of an appeal. In conclusion, it observes that petitioner

without preferring an appeal has approached the Court at a belated

stage with a petition for issue of a writ. Accordingly, the High Court

had dismissed the petition with costs. It is not in dispute nor it can be

disputed that the said judgment and order has attained finality. Sri

Mukund, learned counsel, submits that though petitioner had

questioned the letter of the Tahsildar, Medchal for auctioning the

lands for grant of Ek saala lease, at the time of the hearing of the

petition, there is possibility of the learned counsel for the petitioner to

have questioned the notification issued under the Evacuee Property

48

Act. Since by then, the petitioner had the knowledge of the

notification issued under the Act, otherwise there was no reason for

the High Court to have specifically noticed the notification dated

11.12.1952 issued under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act.

However, Sri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the contesting

respondents to get over this legal hurdle, submits that the writ petition

was filed by Mandal Anjaiah,who was one of the legal representatives

of late Mandal Buchaiah and the judgment and order passed by the

Writ court cannot be put against the other legal representatives of the

Mandal Buchaiah. The learned senior counsel also submits that after

disposal of the writ petition, the other heirs of late Mandal Buchaiah

had preferred a revision before the Deputy Custodian General, New

Delhi under Section 27 of the Evacuee Property Act and the same was

not only entertained but necessary relief was also granted to him.

Therefore, the Judgment and order of the High Court would not affect

the rights of the other legal heirs of late Mandal Buchaiah.

64) Before we consider the contentions of learned counsel, let us

first notice the settled legal position in matters like the present case.

49 65) In Shakur Basti Shamshan Bhumi Sudhar Samiti v. Lt.

Governor, NCT of Delhi (2007) 13 SCC 53, the order passed by the

High Court for closure of cremation ground, in conformity with zonal

development plan, had attained finality. This Court has held that any

subsequent order passed in ignorance of the order of the High Court

which has attained finality is nullity. It was further observed:

"40. The learned Subordinate Judge has also passed

an order in a suit filed by one Balvant Rai in 1991.

What was the nature of the decree passed by the

Subordinate Judge has not been disclosed. The only

contention raised in the list of dates is that the same

was a collusive suit. With whom, the said Balvant Rai

colluded or what was the nature and purport of the

decree had not been disclosed. Some orders appear to

have been passed also by the Additional District

Judge. We do not know whether the Additional District

Judge has passed the order in the same proceeding or

in some other proceedings. If the judgments directing

user of the land in conformity with the zonal

development plan and further directing that a

cremation ground should not be allowed to operate

become final, an order passed in ignorance thereof

would be a nullity."[Emphasis supplied by us]

66) Once the order of the High Court has attained finality, then it is

not open for the lower courts or even for the High Court to ignore the

said Order. In A.P. Housing Board v. Mohd. Sadatullah, (2007) 6

SCC 566, it was held:

50

"34. Though in the appeal filed by the A.P. Housing

Board in the present proceedings, it was asserted that

the decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No.

4194 of 1988 was not final as appeal was filed against

the said decision, at the time of hearing of the appeal,

it was admitted that no such appeal was filed against

the judgment of the High Court and the decision had

attained finality. The consequence of the decision of

the High Court in the circumstances is that in respect

of two acres of land, proceedings under the Land

Acquisition Act were held bad, award nullity and the

landowner continued to remain owner of the property

with all rights, title and interest therein.

41. In our opinion, the learned counsel for the

original petitioner landowners is right in contending

that when the acquisition proceedings and award in

respect of two acres of land was held bad and nullity

by the High Court in previous proceedings, it was not

open to the Special Court or the High Court to ignore

the said order."

67) The Finality of Order by the High Court has been considered and

upheld by this Court in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. and Anr. v.

Gopal Krishna Sengupta and Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 210. This Court

has held:

"25. The question still remains whether, on facts of

this case, the direction given in the Order dated

19th October, 2000 can be maintained. In the

application there was no prayer to examine Pritika

Prabhudesai. The prayer was to quash the proceedings

and start trail afresh. There is no provision in law

which permits this. Thus the application could not be

allowed. Undoubtedly the High Court has proceeded

51

on the footing that this evidence is essential and

necessary. Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure

Code permits taking of evidence at any stage. The

High Court undoubtedly felt that it was in the interest

of all parties that necessary evidence be recorded at

this stage itself. But the fact remains that the

application for this very relief has been rejected on

6 th Novemb er, 1997. No appeal or revision was filed

against that order. The Order dated 6th Novemb er,

1997 has therefore become final. Once such a relief

has been refused and the refusal has attained finality,

judicial propriety requires that it not be allowed to be

reopened. The High Court was obviously not informed

of the Order dated 6th Nove mber, 1997. Thus the High

Court cannot be blamed. However as that Order has

been brought to notice of this Court we cannot ignore

it."

68) In Food Corporation of India v. S.N. Nagarkar, (2002) 2 SCC 475,

this Court has held:

"15. ... In the instant case, the writ petition filed by

the respondent was allowed by judgment and order

dated 6thMay, 1994 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.

4983 or 1993. That order attained finality as it was

not appealed from. In execution proceedings, the

appellant cannot go beyond the order passed by the

Court in the writ petition and, therefore, what has to

be considered is whether the High Court was right in

holding that in terms of the order of the Court dated

6thMay, 1994 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4983 of

1993, the respondent is entitled to the arrears of pay

and allowances with effect from the date of

promotions. If the answer is in the affirmative, the

question whether such relief ought to have been

granted cannot be agitated in execution proceeding.

We find considerable force in the submission urged on

52

behalf of the respondent. In these proceedings it is not

permissible to go beyond the order of the learned

Judge dated 6th M ay, 1994 passed in Civil Writ Petition

No. 4983 of 1993. The execution application giving

rise to the instant appeal was filed for implementing

the order dated 6th May, 1994 and in such proceeding,

it was not open to the appellant either to contend that

the judgment and order dated 6th M ay, 1994 was

erroneous or that it required modification. The

judgment and order aforesaid having attained finality,

has to be implemented without questioning its

correctness. The appellant therefore, cannot be

permitted to contend in these proceedings that the

judgment and order dated 6thMay, 1994 was erroneous

in as much as it directed the appellant to pay to the

respondent arrears of salary with effect from the dates

of promotion, and not from the dates the respondent

actually joined the promotional posts."

69) In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain and Anr.

(2008) 2 SCC 280, the respondents had availed credit facility to the

tune of `20 Lacs and defaulted in repaying the same to the Bank. The

Bank declared their account as Non Performing Asset and initiated

recovery proceedings against the respondents before the DRT, which

has issued a recovery certificate in favour of the Bank. However,

against this, respondents did not prefer any appeal, instead filed writ

petition before the High Court. The High Court has stayed the

execution proceedings and directed the bank to consider the

respondent's case in terms of RBI guidelines. Aggrieved by this,

53

appellant Bank approached this Court against the order of the High

Court. This Court observed that when a decree passed by the DRT had

attained finality, then the proceedings for execution of decree cannot

be stayed by High Court in an independent writ petition. This Court

further held:

"13. The High Court, therefore, erred in issuing a writ

of mandamus directing the appellant bank to declare

the respondents' account as NPA from 31st March,

2000 and to apply the RBI Guidelines to their case and

communicate the outstandings which shall be

recoverable by quarterly instalments over a period of

two years. The later part of the order passed by the

High Court wherein a direction has been issued to

stay the recovery proceedings and the recovery

certificate issued against the respondents has been

cancelled is also wholly illegal as the decree passed

by the DRT had attained finality and proceedings for

execution of decree could not be stayed in an

independent writ petition when the respondents had

not chosen to assail the decree by filing an appeal,

which is a statutory remedy provided under Section 20

of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial

Institutions Act, 1993."

70) Doctrine of Amity and Comity requires the Court of Concurrent

Jurisdiction to pass similar orders. In India Household and

Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd., 2007 (5) SCC

510, this Court has held:

54 "The doctrine of comity or amity required a court not

to pass and order which would be in conflict with

another order passed by a competent court of law."

It was further held:

"17. This aspect of the matter has been considered

in A Treatise on the Law Governing Injunctions by

Spelling and Lewis wherein it is stated:

Section 8. Conflict and loss of jurisdiction. --Where a

court having general jurisdiction and having acquired

jurisdiction of the subject- matter has issued an

injunction, a court of concurrent jurisdiction will

usually refuse to interfere by issuance of a second

injunction. There is no established rule of exclusion

which would deprive a court of jurisdiction to issue an

injunction because of the issuance of an injunction

between the same parties appertaining to the same

subject-matter, but there is what may properly be

termed a judicial comity on the subject. And even

where it is a case of one court having refused to grant

an injunction, while such refusal does not exclude

another coordinate court or Judge from jurisdiction,

yet the granting of the injunction by a second Judge

may lead to complications and retaliatory action...."

71) The issue before us is whether the judgment and order passed

by the High Court in the writ petition filed by one of the legal

representatives having attained finality in so far as the notification

dated 11.12.1952 issued under the Evacuee Property Act, could have

been re-agitated by the other legal heirs of late Mandal Buchaiah and

whether the authorities under the Evacuee Property Act could have

55

gone beyond the Judgment and order passed by the Writ Court and

whether the High Court was justified in the subsequent Writ Petition

filed to have re-agitated the issue which had attained finality.

72) In the Writ Petition filed by Mandal Anjaiah, the Regional

Settlement Commissioner and custodian of Evacuee Property,

Bombay, was arrayed as one of the respondents. That only means, he

was fully aware of the Judgment and order passed by the Writ Court.

In the revision petition filed by the other legal representatives of late

Mandal Buchaiah, he was also arrayed as one of the respondents.

However, a perusal of the order passed by Deputy Custodian General

does not clearly indicate whether it was brought to his notice the

Judgment and order passed by the High Court, yet again, in the order

by the Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian dated 28.5.1979, there is no

reference to the Judgment and order passed by the High Court.

However, in the order passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner of

Evacuee Property, there is reference to the judgment of the High

Court. The said authority while setting aside the order passed by

Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian as nullity, the reliance is not placed

on the judgment and order passed by the High Court. In the

subsequent Writ Petition filed, the respondents therein, in their

56

Counter Affidavit had specifically contended that the notification

dated 11.12.1952 has become final in view of the judgment and order

passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1051 of 1966 as also in

Writ petition 7517 of 1983. The Division Bench of the High Court

while dealing with this aspect, has observed in its order "it is not

correct to read the Judgment dated 14.6.1968 rendered in W.P. No.

1051 of 1966 that this Court had negatived the rights of the

petitioners. A sentence here and there in a Judgment cannot be

picked up in construing it. A Judgment has to be construed on

reading and understanding as a whole and if so understood, the

judgment in W.P. 1051 of 1966 is to the effect that in the writ

petition, the rights of the parties cannot be adjudicated and more so

in view of the fact that alternative remedy of appeal is available under

the Act. By that, it cannot be assumed that this Court had upheld the

notification issued under Section 7 of the Act".

73) We do not agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached by

the Division Bench of the High Court. We do not think that the

decision of the court has been correctly read. However, we do agree

with the learned Judges that the Judgment should be read as a whole

and understood in the context and circumstances of the facts of that

57

case. In this context, it is worthwhile to recall the observations made

by this court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v.

Asstt. Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Delhi [2009(3) SCC 634],

wherein it is observed that "a decision is an authority, it is trite for

which it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom.

This wholesome principle is equally applicable in the matter of

construction of a judgment. A judgment is not to be construed as a

Statute. It must be construed upon reading the same as a whole. For

the said purpose, the attending circumstances may also be taken into

consideration."

74) At the cost of repetition, we once again intend to notice the

judgment and order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 1051 of

1966. The Court, while narrating the facts, specifically observes that

what is challenged before it by the petitioner was the notification

dated 11.12.1952 issued under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act

declaring certain properties as evacuee properties. While dismissing

the writ petition, the Court has observed that petitioner has failed to

avail the alternate remedy of appeal provided under the Act and at the

belated stage, he cannot question the correctness or otherwise of the

notification dated 11.12.1952. Therefore, it may not be correct to say

58

that the court had rejected the writ petition only on the ground that the

petitioner without availing the alternate remedy provided under the

Act, could not have filed the writ petition. We hold that the writ

petition was dismissed by the High Court not only on the ground that

the petitioner had failed to avail the remedy under the Act, but also on

the ground that the petitioner could not have questioned the

notification dated 11.12.1952 at a belated stage. Therefore, in our

view, the approach of the Division Bench of the High Court was not

justified in entertaining a writ petition on the very issue, which had

attained finality in an earlier proceeding. This view has nothing to do

with the Principle of res judicata nor are we saying Principles of res

judicata would apply in the facts and circumstances of this case. We

are only holding that when a competent court refuses to entertain a

challenge made to a notification issued on 11.12.1952 in a writ

petition filed in the year 1966, the High Court could not have

entertained the writ petition on the same cause of action at a belated

stage in a writ petition filed in the year 1990. The course adopted by

the High Court not only leads to confusion but also leads to

inconvenience. We also hold that the Judgment and order of the High

Court was binding on the authorities under the Evacuee Property Act 59

and, therefore, they could not have reagitated the correctness or

otherwise of the notification dated 11.12.1952 issued under Section 7

of the Evacuee Property Act.

75) Shri. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel, contends that the

writ petition was filed by one of the co-owners of late Mandal

Buchaiah and judgment and order passed would not bind the other

parties. We cannot agree. It is a settled law that no co-owner has a

definite right, title and interest in any particular item or portion

thereof. On the other hand, he has right, title and interest in every part

and parcel of the joint property or coparcenery under Hindu Law by

all the coparceners. Our conclusion is fortified by the view expressed

by this court in A. Viswanath Pillai and Others vs. The Special

Tahsildar for Land Acquisition No.IV and Others (1991) 4 SCC 17),

in which this Court observed:

"It is settled law that one of the co-owners can file a suit and recover the property against strangers and the decree would enure to all the co-owners. It is equally settled law that no co-owner has a definite right, title and interest in any particular item or a portion thereof. On the other hand he has right, title and interest in every part and parcel of the joint property or coparcenery under Hindu law by all the coparceners. In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814, this Court upheld an application by one of the co-owners for eviction of a tenant for personal occupation of the co-owners as being maintainable. 60 The same view was reiterated in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath (1976) 4 SCC 184 and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh..."

"....A co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as a sole owner of the property. It is not correct to say that a co-owner's property was not its own. He owns several parts of the composite property alongwith others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner in the property. That position will undergo a change only when partition takes place and division was effected by metes and bounds. Therefore, a co-owner of the property is an owner of the property acquired but entitled to receive compensation pro rata."

76) Re. Constructive Res judicata:- Learned counsel Shri.

Mukund submits that the respondents herein for the first time in the

writ petition filed in the year 1990 had raised a contention that the

procedure prescribed under the Evacuee Property Act and the rules

framed thereunder were not followed before notifying the lands in

question as evacuee property. Though this ground was available, the

same was not raised. Therefore, it is contended that a ground, though

opened to be raised, but not raised in earlier writ petition, cannot be

allowed to be raised in a subsequent writ petition.

Sri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel, would contend that

the judgment and order in W.P. No. 1051 of 1966 was not dismissed

on merits but only on the ground of delay and laches and therefore,

61

principles of constructive res judicata would not apply. Our attention

is invited to the decision of this court in the case of Daya Rao Vs.

State of U.P. (1962) 1 SCR 574 and in the case of Hosunak Singh Vs.

Union of India (1979) 3 SCC 135.

77) In our view, this issue need not detain us for long. This Court

in the case of Devilal Modi, Proprietor, M/s Daluram Pannalal Modi

v. Sales Tax officer Ratlam & Ors. [AIR 1965 SC 1150], has observed

that "the rule of constructive res judicata that of a plea could have

been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent,

he would not be permitted to take that plea against the same party in

a subsequent proceeding, which is based on the same cause of action,

is founded on the same considerations of public policy. If the

doctrine of constructive res judicata is not applied to writ

proceedings, it would be open to the party to take proceedings one

after another and urge new grounds every time, and that plainly is

inconsistent with considerations of Public policy."

78) In the present case, it is admitted fact that when the contesting

respondents filed W.P. No. 1051 of 1966, the ground of non-

compliance of statutory provision was very much available to them,

62

but for the reasons best known to them, they did not raise it as one of

the grounds while challenging the notification dated 11.12.1952

issued under the Evacuee Property Act. In the subsequent writ

petition filed in the year 1990, initially, they had not questioned the

legality of the notification, but raised it by filing an application, which

is no doubt true, allowed by the High Court. In our view, the High

Court was not justified in permitting the petitioners therein to raise

that ground and answer the same, since the same is hit by the

principles analogous to constructive res judicata.

79) Re: Whether the High Court could have gone into the facts

under its writ jurisdiction:- The learned counsel Shri Mukund

contends that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article

226 of the Constitution of India ought not have gone into the disputed

facts and render a finding on those facts. The learned counsel invites

our attention to the observations made by this Court in Surya Dev Rai

vs. Ramchander Rai and Others (2003) 6 SCC 675, Ranjit Singh vs.

Ravi Prakash (2004) 3 SCC 682 and Karnataka State Industrial

Investment and Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Cavalet India Ltd.

and Others (2005) 4 SCC 456. Per contra, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned

senior counsel submits that since there is a bar for filing civil suit

63

under Section 28 and Section 48 of the Evacuee Property Act and

Section 36 of the Displaced Persons Act, the High Court necessarily

has to go into disputed question of facts. In aid of his submission, the

learned senior counsel has relied on the decisions of this Court in the

case of State of Orissa vs. Dr. Miss Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967) 2

SCR 625, Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Ors. vs. Municipal Committee,

Bhatinda and Ors. (1969) 3 SCC 769, Om Prakash Vs. State of

Haryana and others (1971) 3 SCC 792, Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram

Chander Rai and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 675 and ABL International Ltd.

and Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and

Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553.

80) The High Court in its writ jurisdiction, will not enquire into

complicated questions of fact. The High Court also does not sit in

appeal over the decision of an authority whose orders are challenged

in the proceedings. The High Court can only see whether the

authority concerned has acted with or without jurisdiction. The High

Court can also act when there is an error of law apparent on the face

of the record. The High Court can also interfere with such decision

where there is no legal evidence before the authority concerned, or

where the decision of the authority concerned is held to be perverse,

64

i.e., a decision which no reasonable man could have arrived at on the

basis of materials available on record. Where an enquiry into

complicated questions of fact is necessary before the right of

aggrieved party to obtain relief claimed may be determined, the court

may, in appropriate cases, decline to enter upon that enquiry, but the

question is always one of discretion and not of jurisdiction of the court

which may, in a proper case, enter upon a decision on questions of

fact raised by the petitioner.

81) Before we advert to the settled legal position, we will notice the

decisions on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the

parties.

82) This Court in Surya Devi Rai's case (supra), for parameters for

the exercise of jurisdiction, held as under :-

"(3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the

Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of

jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate court is found

to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming

jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in

excess of its jurisdiction - by overstepping or

crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in

flagrant disregard of law or the rules or procedure

or acting in violation of principles of natural justice

where there is no procedure specified, and thereby

occasioning failure of justice.

65 (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution is exercised for keeping the

subordinate courts within the bounds of their

jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has

assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or

has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does

have or the jurisdiction though available is being

exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted

by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has

occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to

exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of

supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to

correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the

following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is

manifest and apparent on the face of the

proceedings such as when it is based on clear

ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of

law, and (iii( a grave injustice or gross failure of

justice has occasioned thereby."

(83) In Ranjeet Singh's case (supra), this Court, while explaining the

jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of its power under Article

226 and 227 of the Constitution, held :-

"Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the

Appellate Court, the respondent preferred a writ

petition in the/High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad under Article 226 and alternatively under

Article 227 of the Constitution. It was heard by a

learned Single Judge of the High Court. The High

Court has set aside the judgment of the Appellate

Court and restored that of the Trial Court. A

perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows

that the High Court has clearly exceeded its

66

jurisdiction in setting aside the judgment of the

Appellate Court. Though not specifically stated, the

phraseology employed by the High Court in its

judgment, goes to show that the High Court has

exercised its certiorari jurisdiction for correcting

the judgment of the Appellate Court."

(84) In Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development

Corporation Ltd. (supra), while explaining the jurisdiction of the High

Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution, has stated :-

"The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit as

an appellate authority over the acts and deeds of the

financial corporation and seek to correct them. The

Doctrine of fairness does not convert the writ courts

into appellate authorities over administrative

authorities."

(85) Shri Ranjit Kumar, per contra, has placed reliance on the

observations made by this Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dr.

(Miss) Binapani Dei and others (1967) 2 SCR 625, has observed :-

"Under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court

is not precluded from entering upon a decision on

questions of fact raised by the petition. Where an

enquiry into complicated questions of fact arises in a

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before

the right of an aggrieved party to obtain relief

67

claimed may be determined, the High Court may in

appropriate cases decline to enter upon that enquiry

and may refer the party claiming relief to a suit. But

the question is one of discretion and not of

jurisdiction of the Court."

(86) In Smt. Gunwant Kaur and others Vs. Municipal Committee,

Bhatinda and others (1969) 3 SCC 769, this Court held as under :-

"The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the

petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of

its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226

merely because in considering the petitioners right to

relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a

petition under Article 226 the High Court has

jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law.

Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary,

but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial

principles. When the petition raises questions of fact

of a complex nature, which may for their

determination require oral evidence to be taken, and

on that account the High Court is of the view that the

dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ

petition, the High Court may decline to try a

petition."

(87) In Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana and others (1971) 3 SCC

792, this Court observed :-

"The two judgments referred to by the High Court

proceeded on the ground that the High Court would

not in deciding a petition for a writ under Article 226

of the Constitution enter upon disputed questions of

fact. But whether in the present case there are

disputed questions of fact of such complexity as would

68

render it inappropriate to try in hearing a writ

petition is a matter which has never been decided.

There is no rule that the High Court will not try issues

of fact in a writ petition. In each case the court has to

consider whether the party seeking relief has an

alternative remedy which is equally efficacious by a

suit, whether refusal to grant relief in a writ petition

may amount to denying relief, whether the claim is

based substantially upon consideration of evidence

oral and documentary of a complicated nature and

whether the case is otherwise fit for trial in exercise

of the jurisdiction to issue high prerogative writs."

(88) In ABL International Ltd. and another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee

Corporation of India Ltd. and others (2004) 3 SCC 553, this Court has

held :-

"Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of

law that merely because one of the parties to the

litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the

case, the court entertaining such petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to

relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of Smt.

Gunwant Kaur (supra), this Court even went to the

extent of holding that in a writ petition, if facts

required, even oral evidence can be taken. This

clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ

court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition

involving disputed questions of fact and there is no

absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if

the same arises out of a contractual obligation and or

involves some disputed questions of fact." 69

(89) In Custodian of Evacuee Property Punjab and others Vs. Jafran

Begum (1967) 3 SCR 736, this Court held :-

"It may be added that the only question to be

decided under s. 7 is whether the property is evacuee

property or not and the jurisdiction of the Custodian

to decide this question does not depend upon any

finding on a collateral fact. Therefore there is no

scope for the application of that line of cases where it

has been held that where the jurisdiction of a tribunal

of limited jurisdiction depends upon the first finding

certain state of facts, it cannot give itself jurisdiction

on a wrong finding of that state of fact. Here under s.

7 the Custodian has to decide whether certain

property is or is not evacuee property and his

jurisdiction does not depend upon any collateral fact

being decided as a condition precedent to his

assuming jurisdiction. In these circumstances, s. 46 is

a complete bar to the jurisdiction of civil or revenue

courts in any matter which can be decided under s. 7.

This conclusion is reinforced by the provision

contained in s. 4(1) of the Act which provides that the

Act overrides other laws and would thus override s. 9

of the Code of Civil Procedure on a combined

reading of Sections 4, 28 and 46. But as we have said

already, s. 46 or s. 28 cannot bar the jurisdiction of

the High Court Art. 226 of the Constitution, for that is

a power conferred on the High Court under the

Constitution."

(90) We are of the view that the High Court has not committed an

error while entertaining a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227

of the Constitution, wherein the proceedings under Section 7 of the

Evacuee Property Act was questioned. We say so for the reason that

70

under the Evacuee Property Act, there is specific bar for the civil

court to adjudicate on the issue whether certain property is or is not

evacuee property. This issue can be decided only by the custodian

under the Act. Any person aggrieved by the findings of the custodian

can avail the other remedies provided under the Act. The findings and

the conclusion reached by the authorities under the Act in an

appropriate case can be questioned in a petition filed under Article

226 of the Constitution even it involves disputed questions of facts.

This issue, in our view, is no more res integra in view of three Judge

Bench decision of this Court in Jafran Begum's case (supra).

(91) Re : Whether the lands in question are evacuee property

under Evacuee Property Act :

Shri Mukund, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that

the disputed lands belong to late Rahim Baksh Khan and after issuing

notice to the sons of late Rahim Baksh Khan and after following the

procedure prescribed under the Evacuee Property Act and the rules

framed thereunder, the lands were notified as evacuee property by

issuing notification dated 11.12.1952. Learned counsel further

submitted that late Rahim Baksh Khan had the money decree against

71

late Mandal Buchaiah and in execution of the court decree, Rahim

Baksh Khan became the owner of the property and his name had been

recorded in the Khatra Khatauni as owner of the said lands. The entry

so made in the revenue records was not questioned by anybody

including late Mandal Buchaiah during his lifetime.

It is further submitted that the records of the execution petition

was not traceable since the matter is 60 years old and they have also

not been placed on record by the contesting respondents. Therefore,

in view of the entries made in the Revenue records, late Rahim Baksh

Khan and his legal representatives were in possession of the lands

under dispute. It is also submitted that the contesting respondents

took the said lands on Ek saala lease from the Government in the year

1952 to 1955 and only in the year 1956, they made representation for

the redressal of their grievance before the authorities under the

Evacuee Property Act and since those representations did not yield

any result, they approached the High Court only in the year 1966 only

questioning the action of Tahsildar who had proposed to auction of

the lands for grant of Ek saala lease. However, Shri Ranjit Kumar

would submit that late Rahim Baksh Khan never became the owner of

the lands since he did not execute the money decree that he had

72

obtained from a civil court. The learned senior counsel by placing

reliance on various provisions of the Evacuee Property Act and the

rules framed thereunder, submits that since procedure prescribed

under the Evacuee Property Act is not followed, the authorities under

the Act could not have declared the disputed lands as evacuee

property. It is submitted that the order passed under Section 7 of the

Evacuee Property Act is manifestly illegal and the illegality cannot be

perpetuated against the contesting respondents since they are owners

and in continuous possession of the property. The learned senior

counsel also submits that except the notification issued under Section

7 of the Act, no other document such as order passed under the Act

after notice to the persons interested in the lands is produced by the

State Government in whose custody the records of the proceedings

were available. Therefore, Deputy Custodian General was justified in

setting aside the declaration made under Section 7 of the Evacuee

Property Act which order has merged with the impuged judgment and

order of the High Court. However, learned counsel for the State of

Andhra Pradesh by referring to their counter affidavit filed in the writ

petition before the High Court submits that the authority under the Act

before issuing notification under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property

73

Act, the procedure prescribed therein had been followed and this

assertion had not been denied by the respondents by filing their reply

affidavit and since no denial of the factual assertion made by the State

Government, the only inference that can be drawn is that the proper

procedure prescribed under the Act had been followed before issuing

the notification under the Evacuee Property Act.

(92) Admittedly, before the High Court, parties to the lis had not

produced any records. Petitioners therein claimed that they were not

dispossessed from the lands in dispute pursuant to any money decree

by late Rahim Baksh Khan or his legal representatives. It is the stand

of the appellants and also the State Government that the name of late

Rahim Baksh Khan had been recorded in the Khatra Khatauni and the

authorities under the Evacuee Property Act after issuing notices to the

legal representatives of late Rahim Baksh Khan and also the public

notice, the notification under Section 7 of the Act was issued and

gazetted. Since the records are of the year 1952, neither the State

Government nor the contesting respondents could produce any

records or documents in support of their claim. However, based on

the affidavits filed by the petitioner, the High Court proceeds to hold

that they were not dispossessed from their lands in accordance with

74

law. This reasoning of the learned Judges is firstly difficult to

comprehend and secondly, difficult to accept. It is the specific case

of the appellants, by placing reliance on the revenue records, that the

name of late Rahim Baksh Khan found a place in the revenue records

prior to issuance of the notification dated 11.12.1952 under the

Evacuee Property Act and, thereafter, the name of the custodian is

shown as the owner of the lands. The burden of proof was on the

petitioners therein to prove their title, right and interest in the

property. It looks again very strange to us that the High Court, in the

absence of any records of the year 1952, proceeds to determine that

the official respondents had not followed the mandatory requirement

of the provisions of the Evacuee Property Act and rules framed

thereunder before declaring the disputed lands as evacuee property. It

also looks odd and queer to us that the High Court, in the absence of

any records of the civil court and the executing court, proceeds to

arrive at a definite finding that the sale of property had not taken

place. Pursuant to the money decree passed, the executing court had

not auctioned disputed lands and late Rahim Baksh Khan became the

owner of the lands, though it concedes that the above facts have to be

proved with reference to the records and there cannot be oral evidence

75

in this regard. To say the least, it was highly inappropriate for the

High Court to have proceeded to determine whether any notice was

issued to late Mandal Buchaiah before notifying the property as

evacuee property without there being any material nor the documents

and records by relying only on the procedure prescribed under the Act

and the rules thereunder, even after noticing that both the parties have

not produced any records, since the records are old and not traceable.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion, the High Court was

wholly incorrect when it arrives at a finding that there is manifest

illegality while issuing notification under Section 7 of the Evacuee

Property Act. For the very same reason, we cannot also accept the

findings and the conclusion reached by the Collector-cum-Deputy

Custodian in his order dated 28.05.1979.

(93) The High Court in the impugned Judgment, also gives a finding

that the authorities under the Act have violated the principles of

natural justice in not issuing notice to the owners of the lands in

dispute before taking any action under the Act. We are of the view

that whether any notice under the Act was issued or not, can only be

decided with reference to the records. Such records were neither

available nor any material was produced by the petitioners in support

76

of their assertion made in the writ petition. Though, this assertion was

denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed before the

Court, this issue is answered by the High Court in favour of the

petitioners. We disagree with the findings and conclusion reached by

the High Court in this regard.

(94) Re : Effect of acquisition and Distribution of the Evacuee

Propety under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and

Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

The contention of the learned counsel Shri Mukund is that once

the notification under Section 12 of the Displaced Property Act is

issued and the lands are acquired for re-distribution, no proceedings

can lie under the Evacuee Property Act. Per contra, learned senior

counsel Shri Ranjit Kumar would submit this can be so, provided

notification issued under Evacuee Property Act is valid and legal.

Shri Mukund, learned counsel has placed reliance on Major Gopal

Singh and Others. vs. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab (1962) 1

SCR 328, Basant Ram vs. Union of India (1962) Supp. 2 SCR 733 and

Dafedar Niranjan Singh and Another vs. Custodian, Evacuee

Property (Pb.) and Another (1962) 1 SCR 214.

77 (95) In Major Gopal Singh's case, this Court held that "the power of

the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act,

1950, to allot any property to a person or to cancel an allotment

existing in favour of a person rests on the fact that the property vests

in him. But the consequence of the publication of the notification by

the Central Government under Section 12(1) of the Displaced

Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act with regard to any

property or a class of property would be to divest the custodian

completely of his right in the property flowing from Section 8 of the

Administration of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and vest that

property in the Central Government."

(96) In Basant Ram's case, this Court held that "It is not in dispute

that the evacuee property in these two villages was notified under

Section 12(1) of the Act on March 24, 1955. The consequence of that

notification is that all rights, title and interest of the evacuee in the

property ceased with the result that the property no longer remained

evacuee property. Once, therefore, the property ceased to be evacuee

property, it cannot be dealt with under Central Act No. XXXII of 1950

or the Rules framed thereunder."

78 (97) Shri Ranjit Kumar's submission is that the proceedings under

the 1954 Act only happen if the proceedings under the 1950 Act are

valid. If the proceedings under 1950 Act is invalid, the 1954 Act does

not come into operation. To demonstrate that, the proceedings under

the Evacuee Property Act is invalid for want of notice on the

person/persons who would be effected by an order under the Act, the

learned senior counsel has relied on the observations made by the

High Court of Bombay in the case of Abdul Majid Hazi Mohammed

vs. P.R. Nayak (AIR 1951 Bombay 440), wherein the Court has

observed that mode of service of notice under Section 7 of Act read

with Rule 25 of the Rules, contents of the notice and the nature of the

order that requires to be passed by the Custodian under the Evacuee

Property Act.

(98) In Dr. Zafar Ali Shah and Others vs. The Assistant Custodian

of Evacuee Property [1962] 1 SCR 749, wherein this Court has

observed that Section 12 of Displaced Persons Act, 1954 only affects

the rights of Evacuee in his property. The notification made under

that Section did not have the effect of extinguishing the petitioners'

rights in the houses as they had never been declared evacuees.

79 (99) In Ebrahim Aboobaker vs. Tek Chand Dolwani [1953] SCR

691, wherein the Court has stated that it is well established and not

disputed that no property of any person can be declared to be evacuee

property unless that person had first been given a notice under Section

7 of the Act.

(100) In Nasir Ahmed vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee

Property, U.P. Lucknow and Another [1980] 3 SCR 248, it is held,

that Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act required the custodian to

form an opinion that the property in question was evacuee property

within the meaning of the Act before any action under that Section

was taken. Under Rule 6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property

(Central) Rules, 1950, the custodian had to be satisfied from

information in his possession or otherwise that the property was

prima-facie evacuee property before a notice was issued.

(101) To answer this issue, we are required to notice certain

provisions of both the Acts to arrive at a finding whether both the

Acts operate independent of each other or whether they are

complimentary and the action of one Act has some bearing on the

other Act which we are concerned in these appeals.

80 (102) The Evacuee Property Act was mainly intended to provide for

the administration of evacuee property. The Act is primarily

concerned with evacuee property and not the person who is evacuee.

The procedure prescribed to declare a particular property as an

evacuee property is mandatory and they are to be complied with by

the authorities notified under the Act and the Rules framed

thereunder. The Act is a complete code itself in the matter of dealing

with evacuee property. The question whether any property or right or

interest in any property is or is not evacuee property can be

adjudicated only by the custodian and not the civil courts. Section 7

of the Act confers the power upon the custodian to declare certain

property as evacuee property. Sub-section (1) provides that where the

custodian is of the opinion that any property is evacuee property

within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Evacuee Property Act, then

he may pass an order declaring such property to be evacuee property,

provided he causes notice thereof to be given in such manner as may

be prescribed to the persons interested and he holds such inquiry into

matter as the circumstances of the case permit. Section 8(1) of the

Act envisages that once the property has been declared to be evacuee

property under Section 7, that property must be deemed to have

81

vested in the custodian for the State. Section 8(4) contemplates a

situation even where any evacuee property has vested in the

custodian, any person is in possession thereof shall be deemed to be

holding it on behalf of the custodian. Section 9 gives the power to the

custodian to take possession of evacuee property which is vested in

him. Section 24 confers a right of appeal against the orders passed

under Section 7, 40 and 48 of the Act. Section 27 confers on the

Custodian General the power of revision to revise the orders under the

Act either `suo-moto' or on an application filed by the aggrieved

person. Section 28 bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts from

entertaining suits relating to matters within the exclusive jurisdiction

of the custodian. But Section 28 or Section 46 of the Act cannot bar

jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The question whether evacuee property has been vested in custodian

or not is a question of fact and the same cannot be interfered with

except in exceptional circumstances which would include violation of

principles of natural justice before notifying a property an evacuee

property.

82 (103) The Displaced Persons Act provides for payment of

compensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced persons and for

matters connected therewith. The Sections which require to be

noticed for the purpose of this case are Sections 12 and 24 of the

Displaced Persons Act. Section 12 of the Act authorizes the Central

Government to acquire evacuee property for rehabilitation of the

displaced persons. Section 24 of the Act vests power in the Chief

Settlement Commissioner to set aside or vary any order passed by any

of the officers named in that sub-section at any time, if the Chief

Settlement Commissioner is not satisfied about the legality or

propriety of such order.

(104) To appreciate and resolve the controversy raised in these

appeals, it would be useful to extract the relevant Section 12 which

reads as under:

"12. Power to acquire evacuee property for

rehabilitation of displaced persons--(1) If the

Central Government is of opinion that it is

necessary to acquire any evacuee property for a

public purpose, being a purpose connected with the

relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons,

including payment of compensation to such

persons, the Central Government may at any time

acquire such evacuee property by publishing in the

Official Gazette a notification to the effect that the

83

Central Government has decided to acquire such

evacuee property in pursuance of this section.

(2) On the publication of a notification under

sub-section (1), the right, title and interest of any

evacuee in the evacuee property specified in the

notification shall, on and from the beginning of the

date on which the notification is so published, be

extinguished and the evacuee property shall vest

absolutely in the Central Government free from all

encumbrances.

(3) It shall be lawful for the Central Government,

if it so considers necessary, to issue from time to

time the notification referred to in sub-section (1) in

respect of--

(a) all evacuee property generally; or

(b) any class of evacuee property; or

(c) all evacuee property situated in a specified

area; or

(d) any particular evacuee property.

(4) All evacuee property acquired under this

Section shall form part of the compensation

pool."

(105) At the cost of repetition, let us once again notice the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Shri Mukund,

learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the notification is

issued under Section 12 of the Displaced Property Act, the evacuee

property notified under the Evacuee Property Act no more exists and

therefore, the authorities under the Evacuee Property Act could not

84

have passed the order dated 25.09.1970 and 28.05.1979 and,

therefore, Chief Settlement Commissioner of Displaced Persons Act

was justified in passing the order dated 11.05.1983. The learned

senior counsel Shri Ranjit Kumar would submit that since there was

irregularity in declaring the disputed lands as evacuee property, the

Deputy Custodian General was justified in setting aside the

notification declaring the disputed land as evacuee property.

(106) Section 12 of the Act authorizes the Central Government to

acquire the evacuee property if it so desires and on such acquisition

the property shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from

all encumbrances. The pre-requisite for acquiring property under

Section 12 is that it must be evacuee property as defined under

Section 2 (f) of the Act. The consequence of issuing notification

under Section 12 of the Act would denude the powers of the

Custodian under Evacuee Property Act. As soon as the notification is

published, property ceases to be evacuee property. This Court in the

case of Haji Siddik Haji Umar and Others. Vs. Union of India (1983)

1 SCC 408, has held "that the publication of a notification under

Section 12 extinguishes the right, title or interest of the evacuee in the

evacuee properties. By virtue of Section 12(2) they vest absolutely in

85

the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The only relief

available to an evacuee is compensation in accordance with such

principles and in such manner as may be agreed upon between the

two countries. The jurisdiction of the Court to consider any orders

passed by the Custodian or any action taken by him would not be

barred if the orders passed or the action taken was without

jurisdiction. But, if a party succeeds in establishing that the action

taken or the orders passed were outside the purview of the Act, then,

those would not be the orders passed under the Act."

(107) While answering the issue whether the `disputed lands' is

evacuee property or not, we have held that the notification issued

under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act is valid in law and,

therefore, one and the only conclusion that can be reached on this

issue is, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the

notification issued by the Central Govt. under Section 12 of the

Displaced Persons Act, for the `disputed lands' had vested in the

Central Govt. and thereby had lost the status of evacuee property.

(108) Shri Ranjit Kumar also submitted that the order passed by the

Chief Settlement Commissioner is one without jurisdiction, since the

86

said authority can exercise his power of revision to set a side any

order passed by any of the officers named in that Section. Since

Deputy Custodian General is not one of those officers named in that

sub-section, he could not have exercised his power of revision against

an order passed by Deputy Custodian General dated 28.05.1979.

(109) Section 24 of the Act speaks of power of revision of the Chief

Settlement Commissioner. The said Section reads :-

"Power of revision of the Chief Settlement

Commissioner - (1) The Chief Settlement Commissioner

may at any time call for the record of any proceeding

under this Act in which a Settlement Officer, an

Assistant Settlement Officer, an Assistant Settlement

Commissioner, an Additional Settlement Commissi

oner, a Settlement Commissioner, a Managing officer

or a managing corporation has passed an order for the

purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or

propriety of any such order and may pass such order in

relation thereto as he thinks fit."

(110) Section 24 of the Act gives power of revision to Chief

Settlement Commissioner either on his motion or an application

made to him to call for the record of any proceeding under the Act

in order to satisfy himself as to legality or propriety of any order

passed therein and to pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks

fit. The Section also provides that the said powers can be used in

87

relation to the orders passed by Settlement Commissioner, an

Assistant Settlement Commissioner, an Additional Settlement

Commissioner, a Settlement Commissioner, a Managing officer or

a managing corporation. A bare reading of the Section shows that

the Chief Settlement Commissioner can revise the order if in his

opinion that the orders passed by the officers named in the Section

are either illegal or improper. In the instant case, the Chief

Settlement Commissioner has invoked his revisional powers at the

request of the allottees/displaced persons to revise the proceedings

and the order passed by the Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian under

the provisions of the Evacuee Property Act dated 28.05.1979. In

view of the plain language of the Section, there cannot be two

views. In our view, what the Chief Settlement Commissioner can

do is only to revise the orders passed by those officers who are

notified in the Section itself and not of the officers under the

provisions of the Evacuee Property Act, if the orders passed by the

named officers in this Section is either illegal or improper. To this

extent, we are in agreement with the submission made by the

learned senior counsel Shri Ranjit Kumar. Therefore, the orders

passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in exercise of his

88

revisional powers under the Displaced Persons Act is without

jurisdiction and non-est in law.

(111) To sum up, our conclusions are :

(I) The High Court ought not to have entertained and granted

relief to the writ petitioner/contesting respondents, since

there was inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching

the court.

(II) The Judgment and order of the High Court in W.P. No. 1061

of 1966 having attained finality was binding on the

authorities under the Evacuee Property Act and the High

Court ought not to have permitted the writ

petitioners/contesting respondents herein to re-agitate the

correctness or otherwise of the notification dated 11.12.1952

in the subsequent writ petition.

(III) A subsequent writ petition was not maintainable in respect of

an issue concluded between the parties in the earlier writ

petition.

89 (IV) In view of the specific bar under Section 46 of the Evacuee

Property Act, writ petition filed by the contesting

respondents before the High Court was maintainable.

(V) Since we have taken exception to the orders passed by the

Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian and the Judgment and

order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 17222 of 1990,

we hold notification dated 11.12.1952 is valid in law.

(VI) Since the notification issued under Section 7 of the Act is

valid in law, the evacuee property acquired by the Central

Govt. under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons Act ceases

to be evacuee property and becomes the property of the

Central Govt.

(VII) In view of the clear language employed in Section 24 of the

Act, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction

to revise the order passed by the Collector-cum-Deputy

Custodian under the Evacuee Property Act.

90 (112) In view of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed. The

Judgment and order passed by the High Court in W.P. 17222 of

1990 dated 27.04.2000 is set aside. Costs are made easy.

..............................J.

[ D.K. JAIN ]

..............................J.

[ H. L. DATTU ]

New Delhi,

May 05, 2011.

91