Case Note & Summary
The special leave petition arose from the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated January 28, 1991 in C.W.P. No.4770 of 1976. The dispute concerned evacuee property of one Ashfaq Hussain, who had migrated to Pakistan. His property vested in the Custodian under the U.P. Custodian of Evacuee Properties Act, and later the Administration of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950 became applicable. The Assistant Custodian, Farrukhabad at Kanpur passed an order dated June 22, 1961, declaring the interest of Ashfaq Hussain as evacuee interest and directing communication to all major shareholders. The order was communicated accordingly. A revision application was filed on August 16, 1975, practically after 14 years, under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950. The Additional Custodian General declined to interfere with the order. The petitioners challenged that order in a writ petition, and the High Court held that the Additional Custodian General had properly exercised revisional jurisdiction and declined to interfere due to the inordinate delay in filing the revision. The core legal issue was whether Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950 prescribed any limitation and whether the revisional authority was bound by the 60-day limitation under Rule 31(5) for appeals. The petitioners contended that the judgment relied upon by the High Court did not support its view and that the High Court erred in its conclusion. The respondents and the authorities maintained that the revision filed after 14 years was barred by delay and that third party rights had accrued. The Supreme Court referred to Purshotam Lal Dhawan v. Diwan Chaman Lal, AIR 1961 SC 1371, which held that Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950 does not prescribe any period of limitation, but Rule 31(5) prescribes limitation of 60 days for filing an appeal and that it would provide a guide to the revisional authorities to exercise revisional power reasonably and fairly. In that case, entertaining the revision within one year was held to be not unreasonable. The Court observed that the powers of the Custodian General under Section 27 read with Rule 31(5) are not intended to be exercised arbitrarily. Being a judicial power, the revisional authority must exercise discretion reasonably and consider whether to entertain a revision beyond the period of sixty days stated in Rule 31(5). In the present case, the petitioners had slept over their rights over the property for well over 14 years, by which time even the persons in possession had perfected their title by prescription. A person who was not diligent in exercising rights and allowed third party rights to accrue cannot be permitted to agitate the right after inordinate delay. The revisional authority rightly declined to interfere with the order after inordinate delay. Though revisional power was given to the revisional authority without limitation, it is settled law that revisional powers should be exercised keeping in view the rights of the parties and the effect of exercise of the revisional powers and all other relevant facts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition and dismissed the special leave petition.
Headnote
A) Evacuee Property - Revisional Jurisdiction - Limitation - Administration of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950, Section 27 read with Rule 31(5) - Section 27 does not prescribe limitation but Rule 31(5) prescribes 60 days for appeals and serves as guide for revisional authority to act reasonably and fairly; power is judicial not arbitrary - In this case revision filed after 14 years against 1961 order was held barred by inordinate delay, especially as third party rights had accrued by prescription - Held that revisional authority rightly declined to interfere and High Court correctly dismissed writ petition (Paras Not mentioned). B) Civil Procedure - Delay and Laches - Third Party Rights - Administration of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950, Section 27 - A person who slept over rights for over 14 years and allowed third parties to perfect title by prescription cannot agitate rights after inordinate delay; revisional powers must be exercised keeping in view rights of parties and effect of exercise - High Court's refusal to interfere upheld - Held that dismissal of special leave petition was justified (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in declining to interfere with the Additional Custodian General's refusal to entertain a revision filed after 14 years under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950, where no limitation is prescribed but Rule 31(5) provides a 60-day guideline.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that the revisional authority rightly declined to interfere with the 1961 order due to inordinate delay of 14 years during which third party rights had accrued by prescription; the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was justified.
Law Points
- Section 27 of Administration of Evacuee Properties Act
- 1950 does not prescribe limitation
- Rule 31(5) prescribes 60 days for appeals and serves as guide for revisional authority
- revisional powers are judicial and must be exercised reasonably
- not arbitrarily
- revision filed after 14 years not entertainable
- third party rights perfected by prescription
- delay defeats revisional relief
