State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Meer Baksh

2023 INSC 638 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6168 OF 2016

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

MEER BAKSH & ORS. ...Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants.

2. The predecessor-in-title of the respondents who was

the holder of the property was one Sultan Mohammad. The

appellant-State contended that the property held by the said

person is an evacuee property within the meaning of Section

2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950

(for short "the 1950 Act") as the said Sultan Mohammad was

an evacuee within the meaning of clause (d) of Section 2 of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotrathe 1950 Act. Date: 2023.07.22 12:40:36 IST Reason: Civil Appeal No.6168 of 2016 1/3

3. After having perused the judgment of the learned

Single Judge, we find the learned Judge has held that it was

categorically admitted by the State in its reply that the

said Sultan Mohammad never left for Pakistan. It is not

shown to us that the reply does not contain such admission.

Therefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that

the property held by Sultan Mohammad could not have been

declared as an evacuee property and hence, the action of

declaring his property as an evacuee property was set aside.

An appeal was carried by the appellants to the Division

Bench of the High Court by the appellants. In paragraph 4

of the impugned judgment, the appeal Bench has noted thus:

"4. Mr. V.S.Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, has frankly conceded that the predecessor- in-interest of the writ petitioners, namely, Sultan Mohammad, was living in the State of Himachal Pradesh till the year 1983, when he died."

4. Thus, we have to proceed on the footing that it is an

admitted position that the said Sultan Mohammad never left

India and therefore, he cannot be an evacuee within the

meaning of the 1950 Act.

Civil Appeal No.6168 of 2016 2/3

5. Notwithstanding the admitted position that this

gentleman never left India and notwithstanding a fair

concession based on facts made by the learned Additional

Advocate General, the State has chosen to file appeal an

against the orders of the learned Single Judge and the

Division Bench. This action of the State has to be

deprecated.

6. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

7. We saddle the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh

with the costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand)

to be payable to the Writ Petitioners before the High Court.

The amount of costs shall be paid within two months from

today.

..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J. (SANJAY KAROL)

NEW DELHI;

July 19, 2023.

Civil Appeal No.6168 of 2016 3/3