Holding

The certificate issued under the old provisions of Section 16 is invalid, and Section 20A(1) of the Displaced Persons Act, by virtue of its explanation, has overriding effect allowing the government to deny restoration and award compensation only.

Summary

Abdul Qadir bought a house in 1948, which was later declared evacuee property in 1951 despite neither he nor the seller being evacuees. He applied under Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and obtained a restoration certificate on 27‑10‑1956, issued under the pre‑amendment procedure. The Assistant Custodian ordered restoration in 1957, but a displaced person, Ajjumal, was already occupying the house as a tenant. Subsequently, the Central Government invoked Section 20A(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and, relying on its explanation, decided to pay Qadir compensation instead of restoring the property. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed Qadir’s writ petition, and the Supreme Court affirmed that the certificate issued under the old law was invalid and that Section 20A(1) overrides it, allowing compensation in lieu of restoration. The Court dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the certificate issued under the pre‑1956 provisions of Section 16 of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 is valid.
Whether Section 20A(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, with its explanation, overrides a restoration certificate and permits the government to refuse restoration and pay compensation.

Legislation cited

Subjects

evacuee propertyrestoration certificatecompensationDisplaced Persons ActSection 20Atenancyrehabilitation

Judgment

993

ABDUL QADIR A
v.
MANAGING OFFICER CUM ASSIT. CUSTODIAN OF
EVACUEE PROPERTY, JAIPUR & ORS.
October 22, 1979
[N. L. UNTWALIA ,O.ND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.]
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)_ Act 1954--S.20A(l)
Explanation-Scope of•
··-'
. The appellant purchased a house in July, 194~. Although neither the vendor
nor the appellant was an evacuee within the meaning of tho Administration of
~Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the appellant was treated as an .evacuee and the
c
house was declared evacuee· property in 1951. In response to the appe1lant's
petition filed in 1953, a certificate was granted by the Government under the
unamended provisions of section 16 of the Act. When the appellant asked for
restoration· of the house the Assistant Custodian passed an order in 1957 grant-
ing restoration. In the meantime since respondent No. 2 had been inducted as
a tenant in the house by the Custodian after it was declared evacuee property D
the app~ant was asked to take symbolic possession of the house allowing the
tenant to continue in possession.

Section 20A( I) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act, 1954 provided that where an evacuee had made· an application under section
16 of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Central Government is of opinion
that it is not expedient or practicable to restore the whole or any part of th·: E
property to the applicant, it shall be lawful for the Central Government to pay
to the applicant the value of the property in cash from the compensation pool
in lieu of the evacuee property. The Explanation to this section provided that
the provisions of this sub--section shall apply, whether or not a certificate for
the restoration of the evacuee property had been issued to the applicant under
___.;._ section 16(1) of the 1950 Act.
The Central Goverbment revised its earlier order dated November 11, 1960 F
and gave compensation to the appellant under section 20A of the 1954 A.ct.
The appellant's writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Custo-
dian was dismissed by the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : 1. According to section 16 of the 1950 Act, as it stood before G
October 22, 1956, an application for certificate was to be made to the Central
Government. On the issuance of the certificate, restoration order was made by
the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In the instant case the certificate was
. issued on October 27, 1956. The High Court was therefore right "in holding
that the certificate issued in accordance with the old law was not valid.
[995 D-F]
H
2. The provisions of section .20A(1) have got the over~riding effect by
virtue of the Explanation ·appended to it even after a certificate for the restora-
9-743SCI/79
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A tioa of the evacuee property had been issued to the applicant on October 27,
1956. In spite Of the certificate it was open to the Central Government not to !
allow restoration. of the house to the appellant and to pay him compensation
only. The Central Government has adopted the latter conrse. Respondent No. 2,
a displaced person, was inducted as a tenant in the property ~ long time back. l'.
The property was sold to him by the Olstodian. In such a situation it was
just and proper to refuse restoration of the property to the appellant and to
S pay him only compensation. [996 F-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :'Civil Appeal No. 2233 of 1%9.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11-3-1968 of the Rajasthan
High Court in Writ Petition No. 126/62.
Sobhagmal lain and S. K. lain for the Appellant.
c E. C. Agarwala and Girish Chandra for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWAL!A, J. This is an appeal by certificate by Shri Abdul
Qadir from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing his
Writ Petition. The house in question belonged to one Mohammed
D Amin Khan. The appellant purchased the house from the said owner
on 10-7-1948 for Rs. 12,000. It appears that neither the appellant
nor Mohammed Amin Khan was an evacuee within the meaning of
the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, hereinafter called
the Evacuee Property Act. But under some mistaken notion pro-
bably ihe appellant was treated as an evacuee and the house was
E declared as an evacuee property on 15-11-1951 in accordance with
the Evacuee Property Act. Aft& such declaration the question that
the property was an evacuee property could not be reopened and
.i
became final. Upon that footing the. appellant filed an application
on 26-9-1953 under section 16(1) of the Evacuee Property Act,
as the. section then stood, for grant of a certificate. On 27-10-1956
F the ·Central Government granted a certificate under the unamended
provision of law contained in s~ction 16. Pursuant to the above
the appellant made an application to the Assistant Custodian of
Evacuee Property for restoration of the house under sub-section (2)
of section 16. The Asstt. Custodian, respondent no. 1 passed an
G order on 18-3-1957 restoring the house to the appellant. But before
that Shri Ajjumal, respondent no. 2 had been inducted as a tenant
in the house by the .Custodian after it was declared as au evacuee
property. The appellant was directed to take symbolic possession
of the house allowing the said tenant to continue iu its occupation on
receipt of rent from him.
H The appellant came to know later that on 11-11-1960 the Central
Government passed an ocder under section 20A of the Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, hereinafter
;\BDUL QADIR v. MANAGING OFFICER (Untwalia, J.) 995

ireferred to as the Displaced Persons Act, whereby it was ordered that A
mrespect of the house in question action be taken in accordance. with
the said provision of Jaw. On 6-12-1960 the C~ntral Government
-orcjered that it had revised its order dated 11-11-1960 and the peti-
tioner was entitled to compensation only und·~r section 20A of the
Displaced Persons Act. Tn the Civil Suit filed by the appellant against
Ajjumal it transpired that a sale deed had been executed in his favour B
IL as he was a displaced person in occupation of the house and thel
'appellant was entitled to compensation only. He, therefore, filed a
writ petition in the High Court to challenge the action of the Assistant
Custodian, respondent no. 2 and the Union of India, respondent no.
3. c
- " The writ case was contested by all the respondents and it was
asserted that Ajjumal being a sitting allottee had to be rehabilitated
and the appellant was entitled to compensation only.

The High Court has quoted s. 16 of the Evacuee Property Act as
it stood prior to 22-18-1956 and the section as it came into force D
after that date. It has rightly pointed out that there was a change
of procedure in the two provisions. According to section 16 as it
stood before 22-10-1956 the application for certificate was. to be
made to the Central Government and the Central Government in its
discretion was to issue the certificate. On \he issuance of such a
·certificate after following certain procedure the restoratida order had E
to be made by the Custodian of the Evacuee Property. In the pre-
sent case only a certificate was issued on 27-10-1956. The High
·Court is right in holding that the certificate so issued in accordance
with the ol.d Jaw was not valid. Attempts were made before the High
·Court to show that the said certificate was issued pursuant to au order
alleged to have been made on 1-10-1956. The High Court was not F
·satis_fied about the correct'ness of this new stand. Nothing could be
pointed out to us to persuade us to take a view different from the one
taken by the High Court in regard to the question of the invalidity
-of the certificate issued in favour of the appellant on 27-10-1956.

There is another difficulty in the way of the appellant and that
·conies in bzcause of the provision of law contained in section 20A
·of the Displaced Persons Act. The s~id section also had undergone
11 change from time to ·time and at the relevant time sub-section (!)
o0f section 20A stood as follows :-
(1) Where any evacuee OT his heir ha·s made an appli- H
). cation under Sec. 16 of the Evacuee Property Act and the
Central Government is of opinion that it is not expedient or .
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1980] l s.c.a.

A practicable to reBtore the whole oi any part of such property
to the applicant by reason of the property or part thereof
being in occupation of a displaced person or otherwise, then,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Evacuee Property
Act and this Act, it shall be lawful for the Central Govern-

B
ment~
•
(a) to transfer to the applicant in lieu of the evacuee pro-
perty or any part thereof, any immovable property in
the compensation pool or any part thereof, being in
the opinion of the Central Government as nearly as may
be of the same value as the evacuee property or, as the
case may be, any pqrt thereof, or
- ..
-.

(b) to pay to the applicant amount in cash from the com-
pensation-pool in lieu of the evacuee property or part
thereof as the Central Government having regard to the·
value of the evacuee property or part 'thereof may, in
D
the circumstances deem fit.

Explanation :-The provisions of this sub-section shall
apply, whether or not, a certificate for the restoration of the
evacuee property has been issued to the applicant under
E sub-sec. (1) of sec. 16 of the Evacuee Property Act, as in
force before the commencement of the Administration of
Evacuee Property (Amendment) Ordinance, 1956, if the
evacuee property has not in fact been restored to the appli-
caht."

F It would be noticed that the prov1s10ns of section 20A (1) have
got the over-riding effect by virtue of the Explanation appended to
it even after a certificate for the restoration of the evacuee property
had been issued to the applicant on 27-10-1956. In spite of the
certificate it was open to the Central Government not to allow resto-
G ration of the house to the. appellant and to pay him compensation
only. The Central Gove=ent ilas adopted the latter course. Res-
pondent No. 2, a displaced person, was inducted as a tenant in the
property long time back. The property was sold to him also by the
Custodian. In such a situation it was just and proper to refuse
restoration of the property to th~ appellant and to pay him compensa-
B tion only. But we were informe<I. that the amount of compensation,· pay-
able to the appellant has been determined at a somewhat low figure
being in the neighbourhood of Rs. 8,000 only, The appellant had
\ ABDUL QADIR v. MANAGING OFFICER ( Untwalia, J.) 997
I
purchased the house for Rs. i2,000 in the year 1948. In that view of A
the matter we recommend for consideration o! the Government whether
it would he poosihle for them to enhance the µ_mount of compensation
at least to the figure of Rs. _12,000. The matter is finally within
• their jurisdiction and they may decide it as they think it fit and proper
to do.
B
For the reasons stated above this appeal fails and is dismissed but
without costs.

Appeal dismissed•

•