Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The predecessor-in-title of the respondents, Sultan Mohammad, held certain property. The State contended that the property was evacuee property under Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, on the ground that Sultan Mohammad was an evacuee under Section 2(d) of the Act. However, the learned Single Judge found that the State had categorically admitted in its reply that Sultan Mohammad never left for Pakistan. Since leaving for Pakistan is a key requirement for being an evacuee, the Single Judge held that the property could not be declared as evacuee property. The Supreme Court, after perusing the judgment, found no reason to interfere with this finding, as the State did not demonstrate that the reply did not contain such admission. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Evacuee Property - Declaration as Evacuee Property - Section 2(f) Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - The State admitted in its reply that Sultan Mohammad never left for Pakistan, which is a prerequisite for being an evacuee under Section 2(d) of the Act - The learned Single Judge held that the property could not be declared as evacuee property based on this admission - The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the property held by Sultan Mohammad could be declared as evacuee property under Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, given the State's admission that he never left for Pakistan.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge's judgment.
Law Points
- Evacuee property
- Admission by State
- Burden of proof
- Section 2(f) Administration of Evacuee Property Act
- 1950
Case Details
2023 LawText (SC) (01) 102
Civil Appeal No.6168 of 2016
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against a judgment of a learned Single Judge regarding declaration of property as evacuee property.
Remedy Sought
The State of Himachal Pradesh sought to have the property declared as evacuee property.
Filing Reason
The State contended that the property held by Sultan Mohammad was evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge held that the property could not be declared as evacuee property based on the State's admission that Sultan Mohammad never left for Pakistan.
Issues
Whether the property could be declared as evacuee property under Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, given the State's admission that the owner never left for Pakistan.
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that the property was evacuee property as Sultan Mohammad was an evacuee under Section 2(d) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The State's admission that Sultan Mohammad never left for Pakistan precludes the property from being declared as evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
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 the State was unsustainable.
Procedural History
The State of Himachal Pradesh filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, who had held that the property could not be declared as evacuee property.
Acts & Sections
- Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950: Section 2(f), Section 2(d)
