http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: INAYAT ULLAH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE CUSTODIAN,EVACUEE PROPERTY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/10/1957

BENCH: IMAM, SYED JAFFER BENCH: IMAM, SYED JAFFER BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.

CITATION:  1958 AIR  160            1958 SCR  816

ACT:        Evacuee   property,  Notification  of-Issue  of  notice   by        Custodian   on  person  interested-Propriety,  if   can   be        determined  by  Court-Refusal  of  copies  of  materials  by        Custodian-Legality-Administration  of Evacuee property  Act,        1950 (XXXI of 1950), s. 7.

HEADNOTE:        The  appellant  and  his brother  owned  certain  properties        inherited  from  their  father.  The brother  died  and  the        appellant  claimed  to  have  become  the  sole  heir.   The        respondent issued a notice under S. 7 of the  Administration        of  Evacuee Property Act, 1950, in respect of the  share  of        the brother on the ground that the brother had left a  widow        and  a  son  who had migrated to  Pakistan.  The  appellant,        desiring  to know on what materials the notice  was  issued,        applied for copies of the materials on the basis of which he        respondent  had  formed his opinion.   The  application  was        rejected by the respondent.  The appellant filed a  petition        under  Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court  which        was  also dismissed.  The appellant obtained  special  leave        and   contended   that  the  notice   was   issued   without        jurisdiction as there was no material before the  respondent        to   justify  his  issuing  of  the  notice  and  that   the        application  for the copies had been improperly -ejected  by        the respondent.        Held,  that it was for the Custodian to form his opinion  on        such  material  as was before him and  on  such  information        which  he possessed.  It is not for any Court  to  determine        whether  the information in the possession of the  Custodian        was adequate to justify the issue of a notice under S. 7  of        the Act:        Held  further,  that  the application for  copies  had  been        rightly  rejected.   There  are two stages  in  the  process        whereby any property can be declared to be evacuee  property        under  the Act. One is the issuing of the notice to  persons        interested  and  the other is the inquiry under  S.  7.  The        proceedings commence after issue of the notice and not prior        to  it.   A  party to the proceedings will  be  entitled  to        copies of the record and evidence from the stage of        817

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

      the  issuing  of  the notice until  the  conclusion  of  the        enquiry but not previous to the issue of the notice.

JUDGMENT:        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 144 of 1956.        Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated        the  9th July, 1955, of the former Madhya Bharat High  Court        in Civil Misc.  Case No. 27 of 1954.        M.   A. Khan and Ratanaparkhi, for the appellant.        S.   N. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.        1957.  October 30.  The following Judgment of the Court  was        delivered by        IMAM J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the order        of  the  Madhya  Bharat  High  Court  dated  July  9,  1955,        rejecting  an application filed by the appellant under  Art.        226 of the Constitution.        According to the appellant, his father Habibullah died  more        than  twenty years ago leaving behind the appellant and  his        brother  Bashirullah as his sole heirs.  Habibullah, on  his        death,  left  immovable properties in the  city  of  Indore.        Bashirullah, who was unmarried, went mad in 1942 and died in        1950 without any issue.  On his death, the appellant  became        the  sole  owner of all the properties left  by  his  father        Habibullah.  On September 21, 1954, the respondent purported        to  serve  on  the appellant a notice tinder  s.  7  of  the        Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950),        hereinafter  referred  to as the Act.  This notice  was  not        served  on  him  and  was  never  pasted  on  the   property        concerned.   Service  of the notice was,  according  to  the        appellant, not proper and therefore illegal.        The  appellant desiring to know on what material the  notice        under  s.  7 of the Act was issued against  him  applied  on        October  1, 1954, for copies of the record and the  evidence        in the possession of the respondent on the basis of which he        formed the opinion that Bashirullah, at his death, had  left        behind  a son Iqbal and a wife Kamrunnissa who had  migrated        to Pakistan in consequence of which the estate inherited  by        them   from  Bashirullah  became  evacuee   property.    The        application was rejected by the respondent.        818        The  appellant  filed  a  petition under  Art.  226  of  the        Constitution  in  the Madhya Bharat High  Court,  which  was        dismissed by that Court.  The High Court was of the  opinion        that  two  questions fell to be decided in  the  proceedings        before  it-(I)  was  the notice dated  September  21,  1954,        issued by the respondent under s. 7 of the Act, illegal  and        (2)  was  the  refusal of the respondent to  supply  to  the        appellant   copies  of  the  record  and  the  evidence   in        possession  of the respondent prior to the issue  of  notice        under  s. 7 of the Act unlawful?  Both these questions  were        decided against the appellant.        The  notice dated September 21, 1954, was issued under s.  7        of  the Act in accordance with the Rules framed under s.  56        of  the  Act.  Under s. 7 of the Act the notice  has  to  be        given to persons interested in the prescribed manner.   Rule        6  of the Rules framed under the Act requires the notice  to        be  in  Form  I to be served on persons  interested  in  the        property proposed to be declared evacuee property.  We  have        compared  the notice issued in the present case with Form  I        of  the  Rules and can find no difference  between  them  in        essential  particulars.  It was said that the notice in  the        present  case  does  not state the grounds  upon  which  the        property  concerned  was  proposed to  be  declared  evacuee

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

      property   and   Iqbal  and  Kamrunnissa   evacuees.    This        contention  is  without  foundation because  the  notice  in        question definitely states under the heading "Grounds"  that        Iqbal  and Kamrunnissa migrated to Pakistan after  March  1,        1947,  on  account of the creation of  the  Dominions.   The        notice specifies with sufficient clarity the particulars  of        the  property  proposed  to be  declared  evacuee  property.        There was no reliable material to prove the assertion of the        appellant that the notice was not properly served.  We  are,        accordingly, of the opinion that the notice in question  has        not been proved to be illegal on account of contravention of        any  of  the  provisions  of  the  Act  or  the  Rules  made        thereunder.        It was next contended that there was no material before  the        respondent to justify his issuing the notice and, therefore,        the notice was issued without                                    819        jurisdiction.  Section 7 of the Act provides that where  the        Custodian is of the opinion that any property is an  evacuee        property within the meaning of the Act he may, after causing        notice  thereof to be given in the prescribed manner to  the        persons  interested  and after holding such enquiry  in  the        matter, as the circumstances of the case permitted, pass  an        order  declaring any such property to be  evacuee  property.        It  is  for  the  Custodian to  form  his  opinion  on  such        material,  as was before him, and on such information  which        he  possessed.  The notice which he issued was in Form I  of        the  Rules framed under the Act and it stated  clearly  that        there   was  credible  information  in  possession  of   the        respondent that lqbal and Kamrunnissa were evacuees and that        the  property specified in the notice was evacuee  property.        It  was  for  the respondent to decide .   whether,  on  the        information  in  his possession, he should  issue  a  notice        under  s.  7 of the Act.  It is not for this  Court  or  any        other   Court  to  determine  whether  the  information   in        possession  of  the respondent was adequate to  justify  the        issuing  of  the notice.  The contention on  behalf  of  the        appellant  in this respect cannot be supported on any  valid        ground.        It  was next contended on behalf of the appellant that  when        bona fides of the respondent bad been challenged in the High        Court,  that Court should have sent for the record and  seen        for itself as to whether there was any justification for the        issue of the notice under s. 7 of the Act.  In our  opinion,        this  contention cannot prevail as there is no  material  on        the  record  to justify the accusation that  the  respondent        acted with malafides in issuing the notice.  The  respondent        was free to believe or not to believe the information in his        possession.   The mere issue of a notice would not make  the        persons  named  therein evacuees or the  property  mentioned        therein evacuee property.  That stage could only be  reached        after  the notice had been issued and after the  holding  of        such  enquiry, as the circumstances of the  case  permitted,        when an order declaring the property to be evacuee  property        could be made in respect of a person who was an evacuee,  as        defined in        104        820        the  Act.  In our opinion, it was unnecessary for, the  High        Court to have called for the record and to have examined  it        for itself in order to ascertain whether the respondent  was        justified in issuing the notice.        We  have now to consider whether the application for  copies        filed  by  the appellant was improperly  rejected.   On  his        behalf,  it  was contended that the application  for  copies

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

      should  have  been allowed as s. 7 of the  Act  contemplates        only  one  proceeding,  from the commencement  to  the  end,        including the stage prior to the issue of notice,  regarding        the declaration of any property as evacuee property and that        that proceeding is a judicial proceeding.  Since the  appel-        lant  was a party to the proceedings under s. 7 of the  Act,        he  was entitled to have copies of the record including  the        evidence  which constituted the proceedings.   Reliance  was        placed  on s. 49 of the Act, which states that  all  records        prepared  or  registers maintained under the  Act  shall  be        deemed  to  be public documents within the  meaning  of  the        Indian  Evidence  Act and shall be presumed  to  be  genuine        until the contrary is proved.  Reference was also made to s.        45  of the Act which states that for the purpose of  holding        an enquiry under the Act, the Custodian shall have the  same        powers  as  are vested in a civil court under  the  Code  of        Civil  Procedure  when  trying a suit,  in  respect  of  the        following matters:        (a)  enforcing  the attendance of any person  and  examining        him on oath;        (b)  compelling the discovery and production of documents;        (c)  any prescribed matter;        and  the enquiry by the Custodian  shall be deemed to  be  a        judicial proceeding within the meaning of ss. 193 and 228 of        the  Indian Penal Code and the Custodian shall be deemed  to        be a court within the meaning of ss. 480 and 482 of the Code        of  Criminal Procedure.  There can be little doubt that  the        Custodian, while holding an enquiry under s. 7 of the Act is        acting in a judicial capacity and that, by virtue of Rule 35        of the Rules, any party to the enquiry would be entitled  to        copies of any application,        821        objection, petition, affidavit, or statement made by a party        or  a  witness  and any other document.  He  would  also  be        entitled to copies of the final original order passed by the        Custodian or an order passed in appeal, revision or  review.        The  position, however, is quite different with  respect  to        the  material  in possession of the Custodian  on  which  he        formed his opinion and on which he issued notice under s. 7,        because at that stage he was not holding an enquiry and was,        therefore,  not  acting  in a judicial capacity.   It  is  a        misconception  of  the entire scheme of the Act  to  suppose        that  an enquiry under s. 7 of the Act and the issuing of  a        notice  previous to the holding of that enquiry is a  single        proceeding.  When issuing a, notice under s. 7 the Custodian        merely has some credible information which, in his  opinion,        justifies  him in issuing it and thereafter to enquire  into        the matter before making a declaration that the property  is        evacuee  property.  That information may, after the  enquiry        has been concluded, turn out to be entirely insufficient for        making the required declaration.  In our opinion, there  are        two  stages  in  the process whereby  any  property  can  be        declared  to be evacuee property under the Act.  One is  the        issuing of the notice to persons interested and the other an        enquiry  under  s. 7 of the Act.  The  proceedings  commence        after the issue of a notice and not previous to it.  At  the        second  stage, a party to the proceedings would be  entitled        to  copies of the record and the evidence from the stage  of        the  issuing  of  the notice until  the  conclusion  of  the        enquiry but not previous to the issue of the notice.  In our        opinion, the appellant would have been well advised to  have        responded  to  the  notice issued to him  and  assisted  the        respondent  in  holding the enquiry.  The  respondent  would        have  had  to consider all the material before  him  at  the        enquiry before he declared the property in question  evacuee

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

      property.   If the material in the enquiry was  insufficient        to  justify such a declaration, the appellant had the  right        of  appeal  against  the order of the  respondent.   In  our        opinion,  the application of the respondent for  copies  was        rightly rejected by the respondent as he was not,        822        entitled  to  copies of the material before  the  respondent        previous to the issuing of the notice under s. 7 of the Act.        The appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed with costs.                             Appeal dismissed.