Property Cannot Be Declared As Evacuee Property U/s. 2(f) Of Administration Of Evacuee Property Act, If Its Owner Never Left India- SC Reaffirms
The Supreme Court has observed that a property cannot be declared as evacuee property under Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 if the owner of the property has never left India.
The two-judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol held, “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”.
Advocate Rishi Malhotra appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Abhimanyu Jhamba appeared for the Respondent.
The Respondent was the holder of the disputed property, which has been allegedly termed as ‘evacuee property’ by the Appellant within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, 1950. Therefore, the Appellant contended that the Respondent was an ‘evacuee’ within the meaning of clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act, 1950. The Single Judge held that the Respondent never left India and went to Pakistan. Hence the Respondent could not be termed ‘evacuee’ under the Act, 1950 and the action of declaring his property as an evacuee property was not maintainable. The Division Bench also upheld the order of the Single Judge.
*Section 2(f) of the Act, 1950 reads, “Evacuee property means any property of an evacuee (whether held by him as owner or as a trustee or as a beneficiary or as a tenant or in any other capacity), and includes any property which has been obtained by any person from an evacuee after the 14th day of August, 1947 , by any mode of transfer which is not effective by reason of the provisions contained in section 40,] but does not include-- (i) any ornament and any wearing apparel, cooking vessels or other household effects in the immediate possession of an evacuee, (ii) any property belonging to a joint stock company, the registered office of which was situated before the 15th day of August, 1947 , in any place now forming part of Pakistan and continues to be so situated after the said date”.
The Apex Court maintained that the Respondent never left India and therefore, he cannot be an evacuee within the meaning of the Act, 1950. The appeal against the impugned orders should be dismissed. “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”, the Court noted.
Additionally, the Court asserted, “Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal...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”.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Meer Baksh & Ors. (2023 INSC 638)
Click here to read/download Judgment
