Case Note & Summary
The dispute centered on the declaration of Khatiawad Industries Ltd., a company in the former Junagadh State, as an evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The respondent, a Burmese citizen residing in Rangoon, challenged the declaration, while the appellants sought to uphold it. The respondent had filed a revision under Section 27 before the revisional authority, which found against him, and then obtained relief from a single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, who held the declaration illegal and non-est for want of notice under Section 7 read with Rule 6 of the Act. The Division Bench in L.P.A. held the appeal not maintainable, leading the appellants to the Supreme Court. The respondent claimed that in the memory of his father and grandfather, Ibrahim Vali Mohammed and Company, he purchased six lakh shares in Khatiawad Industries Ltd. under an agreement dated June 12, 1944, for Rs.94,000 and odd. The company was declared an evacuee company in 1959. The respondent asserted that he was not an evacuee, being a Burmese citizen, and that the declaration was made without serving notice under Section 7 read with Rule 6. At revision under Section 27, he was given opportunity to prove his interest; he produced only a stamp paper of eight annas value mentioning purchase in the name of Ibrahim Vali Mohammed and Company. The revisional authority disbelieved his claim, noting his business stature, absence of entries in books of accounts or income tax authorities, and lack of attestation of the stamp paper. The single Judge, however, focused solely on the absence of notice and declared the declaration non-est. The core question was whether the High Court was correct in law in holding the declaration illegal for want of notice, despite the respondent having been given an opportunity at revision to establish his interest. Also, whether the respondent had discharged the burden of proving his interest in the evacuee property. The respondent, through counsel, contended that as a non-evacuee Burmese citizen, the declaration without mandatory notice was void. The appellants argued that the revisional authority had given full opportunity and the evidence was insufficient, so the declaration should stand. The Supreme Court noted that although no notice under Section 7 read with Rule 6 was served before declaring the company evacuee property, the respondent was subsequently afforded an opportunity at revision under Section 27 to adduce evidence. The revisional authority had weighed the evidence and found the claim incredible; the stamp paper was not attested by Magistrate or Notary, and absence of corroborative records undermined the purchase. The respondent failed to produce anything before the Supreme Court to establish the purchase. Therefore, the single Judge was not justified in interfering with the declaration. The appeals were allowed, the writ petition dismissed, and the declaration of Khatiawad Industries Ltd. as evacuee property upheld. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Evacuee Property Law - Procedural Compliance and Opportunity at Revision - Validity of Declaration Without Initial Notice - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Section 7, Section 27, Rule 6 - The respondent challenged the declaration of Khatiawad Industries Ltd. as evacuee property on the ground that no notice under Section 7 read with Rule 6 was served. The Supreme Court held that although the mandatory notice was not served before declaration, the respondent was subsequently given full opportunity by the revisional authority under Section 27 to adduce evidence of his interest. Since the respondent failed to prove any interest, the procedural lapse did not vitiate the declaration, and the single Judge's order declaring it non-est was set aside. Held that the appeals are allowed and the writ petition dismissed (Paras 1-2). B) Evacuee Property Law - Proof of Interest in Evacuee Property - Insufficiency of Unattested Stamp Paper - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Section 27 - The respondent claimed purchase of six lakh shares for Rs.94,000 and produced only a stamp paper of eight annas value bearing the name of Ibrahim Vali Mohammed and Company. The revisional authority found the respondent was a business tycoon with no corresponding entries in books of accounts or income tax records, and the stamp paper was not attested by a Magistrate or Notary. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, holding that the respondent failed to establish any interest in the evacuee property, and therefore the declaration of evacuee property was justified (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in law in holding that the declaration of Khatiawad Industries Ltd. as evacuee property was illegal and non-est for want of notice under Section 7 read with Rule 6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, despite the respondent having been given an opportunity to adduce evidence at revision under Section 27.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed and the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The declaration that Khatiawad Industries Ltd. is an evacuee property is upheld.
Law Points
- Notice under Section 7 read with Rule 6 of Administration of Evacuee Property Act
- 1950 is mandatory before declaring property as evacuee
- but procedural lapse can be cured if affected party is given opportunity at revision under Section 27
- burden of proving interest in evacuee property lies on claimant
- unauthenticated stamp paper insufficient to prove purchase of shares
- revisional authority's factual findings not to be interfered with without error
