http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BHANWAR LAL AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REGIONAL  SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, JAIPUR, CUM-CUSTODIAN  OF

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/05/1965

BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR SUBBARAO, K. BACHAWAT, R.S.

CITATION:  1965 AIR 1885            1966 SCR  (1) 163

ACT: Administration   of  Evacuee  Property  Act,  1950  (31   of 1950)--Notice  under s. 7(1) to deceased  Mortgagees-Whether sufficient--No Separation proceedings--Rights of Custodian.

HEADNOTE: The  names  of  the  predecessors  of  the  appellants  were recorded as mortgagees in the villages records in respect of a property, owned by persons who later migrated to Pakistan. The  Custodian of Evacuee Property issued a notice under  s. 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950  to these persons and the predecessors of the appellants stating that  the  predecessors of the appellants  were  in  illegal possession  of  the  property  and to  show  cause  why  the property  should not be declared as evacuee  property.   The notice  was affixed at a conspicuous place in  the  village. It could not be served on the predecessors of the appellants who had died long before the issue of the notice.  Since  no objections  were filed, the Custodian declared the  property as  evacuee property.  No action was also taken to  separate the  interest of the evacuees from those of  the  mortgagees under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act.  The appellants filed  a  writ petition in the High Court for  quashing  the later  order declaring the property as evacuee property  and to   restrain  the  respondent  to  interfere   with   their possession.   The High Court dismissed the petition  holding that  issue  of  the  notice  to  the  predecessors  of  the appellant,  was sufficient compliance tinder s. 7(1) of  the Act.  In appeal to this Court. HELD : The Custodian can form his opinion about any property having  become evacuee proPerty on the basis of  information available  to  him, and issue notice to  persons  interested also  on the basis of such information.  He is not  expected to hold a general. inquiry of the persons interested in  the alleged   evacue  property.  lie  had  complied   with   the requirements  of  s. 7(1) of the Act to give notice  to  the predecessors  of the appellants who resided at  -some  other place and about whom he could have no knowledge whether they were alive or not.  The notice was,however, ineffective  and not good as the predecessors of the appellants had died long before. [165 D-H]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Abdul  Hokim Khan v. The Regional  Settlement  Commissioner, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 531, followed. The  impugned  order  did  not  affect  the  rights  of  the appellants,  if  any as mortgagees.  The  non-issue  of  the notice to the appellants therefore was of no consequence  as the  order  subsequently  passed without the  issue  of  the notice to them did not affect their interest.  By virtue  of the latter order, the rights of the evacuees in the property suit vested in the Custodian and those right:, consisted  of the  rights  of equity of redemption.  This means  that  the Custodian held the property subject to the mortgagee rights, if any, of the appellants. [166 A-B, E-F] So  long  as  proper  action  under  the  Evacuee   Interest (Separation)  Act was not taken to separate the interest  of the evacuees and the appellants 164 who claimed to be the mortgagee the Custodian could not take any action against the appellants or their tenants who  were said to be in possession of the property in suit. [167 A-B]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 244 of 1965. Appeal  bY special leave from the judGment and  order  dated April  7,  1964  of the Rajasthan High Court  in  D.B.  Writ Petition No. 192 of 1960. B.   R.  L.  Iyengar, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta,  for  the appellants. D. R. Prem and B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Raghubar  Dayal, J. Ibrahim and Khurshed, brothers, sons  of Paneh Ali, Isak and Baggu, sons of Jawaye, owned Khasra  No. 26,   measuring  20  bighas,  at  village  Alipore,   Tehsil Hanumangarh.   They  migrated to  Pakistan.   The  Assistant Custodian  of Evacuee Property, Hanumangarh,  issued  notice under  s. 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Proper  Act. 1950 (Act XXXI of 1950) hereinafter called the Act, to these persons  and also to Hazari, son of Chuni and Magha, son  of Kana,  stating therein that Ibrahim and others had  gone  to Pakistan  and  that  Hazari  and  Magha  were  in   :Illegal possession  of  the land.  They were all  required  to  show cause  why the land be not declared evacuee  property.   The notice  was  affixed  at  a  conspicuous  place  in  village Alipore.  The notice could not be served on Hazari and Magha as they had died long berore the issue of notice in 1955. No objections were filed and on April 7, 1955 the  Assistant Custodian   declared  Ibrahim,  Khurshed,  Isak  and   Baggu evacuee$  and  the  aforesaid  property  evacuee   property. Bhanwar  Larson of Hazari and Rati Ram, grandson  of  Magha, filed  a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in  the Rajasthan  High  Court for the quashing of the  order  dated April  7, 1955 and for restraining the  Regional  Settlement Commissioner,  Jaipur,  the  Managing  Officer  of  acquired Evacuee  Property, Ganganagar, the  Tehsildar,  Hanumangarh, from  interfering  with their possession over  the  property declared  to  be evacuee property.  They  alleged  that  one Paneh Mohamad, father of Ibrahim and Khurshed, had mortgaged this  property  to  Hazari  and  Magha  in  1931,  that  the mortgagees had been in possession of the property, that they did  not  get  any notice of the proceedings  taken  by  the Assistant  Custodian and were informed of his order in  1959 by their tenants 165 in  the  land in suit when the allottees of  the  land  were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

taking steps to recover possession.  The, writ petition  was dismissed  by  the High Court which held that the  issue  of notice  to Hazari and Magha was sufficient  compliance  with the  requirements of sub-s. ( 1 ) of s. 7 of the Act as  the Custodian had not to make any preliminary enquiry about  the persons  who  might  be interested in the  property  of  the alleged evacuee.  It is against this order that Bhanwar  Lal and Rati Ram have filed this appeal by special’ leave. Section 7 (1) of the Act reads               "Where  the Custodian is of opinion  that  any               property   is  evacuee  property  within   the               meaning  of  this Act, he may,  after  causing               notice  thereof to be given in such manner  as               may  be prescribed to the persons  interested,               and after holding such inquiry into the matter               as the circumstances of the case permit,  pass               an  order  declaring any Such property  to  be               evacuee property." The Custodian can form his opinion about any property having become   evacuee  property  on  the  basis  of   information available  to him.  It has been so held in Abdul Hakim  Khan v.  The Regional Settlement Commissioner(1).  He  can  issue notice  to  the  persons interested also  on  the  basis  of information available to him.  He is not expected to hold  a general  inquiry  of the persons interested in  the  alleged evacuee  property.  In the present case it appears that  the village   records   about  the  land  in   suit   which   is agricultural.  recorded  the names of Hazari  and  Magha  as mortgagees  and that the Assistant Custodian could  consider them  to  be the persons interested.  He could have  had  no information  whether  these mortgagees who resided  at  some other  place  were  alive  or not.   He  complied  with  the requirements  of  sub-s.  (1) of s. 7 to give  a  notice  to Hazari  and Magha.  The notice however was  ineffective  and not  good  as Hazari and Magha had died  long  before.   The question then arises whether the further Proceedings on  the basis  of  this notice could affect the,  interests  of  the mortgagees. The interest of Ibrahim and others, the evacuees of the pro- perty  in  suit which was under mortgage, consisted  of  the equity  of redemption in the property.  It is this  interest of  theirs which could be declared evacuee property and  the order  of  the  Assistant  Custodian dated  April  7,  1955, declaring  the  aforesaid property to be  evacuee  property, really amounts to an order declaring the (1)  [1962] 1 S.C.R. 1531. 166 right  of  Ibrahim and others in the  equity  of  redemption evacuee  property.   The order cannot affect  the  mortgagee rights  as  lbrahim  and  others  had  no  interest  in  the mortgagee rights. It  follows  that  the impugned order does  not  affect  the rights  of  the appellants if any as mortgagees.   The  non- issue  of  the notice to the appellants therefore is  of  no consequence  as  the order subsequently passed  without  the issue of the notice to them does not affect their interest. Reference  in  this connection may again be  made  to  Abdul Hakim Khan’s Case(1).  In that case a number of persons  had shares  in  certain  property.  Some  of  them  migrated  to Pakistan.   The  notice under s. 7(1) was issued to  one  of those  persons  who  had  not  migrated  to  Pakistan.   The Custodian declared the property of those who had migrated to be  evacuee  property  and  specified  their  share  in  the property.   The other co-shares except the one to  whom  the notice  was  issued, challenged the validity  of  the  order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

passed under s. II of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (Act LXIV of 1951), vesting the entire property in  the Custodian.   This Court held that the, objectors  could  not challenge the validity of the order under s. 7 of the Act as it  did not affect their rights in the property.   Similarly it  can  be  said that the appellants in  this  case  cannot challenge  the  validity of the proceedings  on  the  notice issued  by  the  Assistant Custodian and the  order  of  the Assistant Custodian       the property in suit to be evacuee property  when  that  order does not  affect  the  mortgagee rights of the appellants. By  virtue of the order dated April 7, 1955, this rights  of the ,evacuees in the property in suit vest in the  Custodian and  those rights, is stated earlier, consist of the  rights of  equity  of redemption.  This means  that  the  Custodian holds the property subject to the mortgagee rights, if  any, of the appellants. It  has been conceded by Mr. Prem appearing for the  respon- dents,  that  no  action has been taken  under  the  Evacuee Interest  (Separation)  Act, 1951.  Section 10 of  this  Act empowers  the  competent  officer  to  take  all   necessary measures  for the purpose of separating the interest of  the evacuees  from  those  of the  claimants  in  any  composite property  which, inter alia, means any property which or  in which  an interest has been declared to be evacuee  property or  has vested in the Custodian under the Act and  in  which the  interest of the evacuee is subject to mortgage  in  any form in favour of a person not being an evacuee.  It is only after such separation of the interests of the evacuee and (1)  [1962] I S.C.R. 531. 167 the  claimants  in the composite property that  the  evacuee interest  -gets  vested  in  the  Custodian  free  from  all encumbrances.   It  follows that so long  as  proper  action under  the Evacuee interest Separation Act is not  taken  to separate the interest of the evacuees and the appellants who claim to be mortgagees, the Custodian cannot take any action against  the appellants or their tenants who are said to  be in possession of the property in suit. The  result then is that we dismiss the appeal  and  confirm the order of the Court below with respect to the validity of the  order of the Assistant Custodian dated April  7,  1955. We  allow  the  appeal  with  respect  to  the  prayer   for restraining the Regional Settlement Commissioner and others, respondents 1 to 3, from interfering with the possession  of the  appellants or their tenants.  We order the  parties  to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal partly allowed, 168