Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a residential plot in Lucknow purchased by Mrs. Zohra Naqvi from the Improvement Trust for Rs. 6,400. She was the wife of a police official of the United Provinces and was in Teheran with her husband from 1942. She did not return to India until 1962, when she sold the property to the sons of respondent No.1 and one Mrs. Jain for Rs. 42,000 after the purchaser had obtained an assurance from the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property that the property was not evacuee property. The United Provinces Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 came into force on 24 June 1949. Under Section 2(c), an evacuee includes any person who leaves any place in the United Provinces on or after 1 March 1947 for any place outside India (clause i), or any person resident in any place now forming part of Pakistan who is for that reason unable to occupy, supervise or manage his property in the United Provinces (clause ii). Under Section 5, all evacuee property situate in the United Provinces vests in the Custodian automatically. On 25 March 1963, the Assistant Custodian passed an order declaring the property evacuee property. On 7 March 1964, a notification was issued acquiring the plot under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The respondent filed a revision petition before the Assistant Custodian General, who directed that the property be handed over to the respondent but that the sale price of Rs. 42,000 deposited with Allahabad Bank, Lucknow could be taken by the Custodian. The respondent's request for a sale certificate to the Assistant Custodian having produced no result, he filed a writ petition. A learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition holding that Mrs. Naqvi was an evacuee because she had left Uttar Pradesh after 1 March 1947 for a place outside India, but a Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding that she was not an evacuee under Section 2(c)(i) because she had left before 1 March 1947 and migrated from Teheran; the Division Bench refused to consider Section 2(c)(ii). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Assistant Custodian. The Court held that although clause 2(c)(i) did not apply because Mrs. Naqvi had left U.P. before 1 March 1947 and was in Teheran, clause 2(c)(ii) clearly applied because she was resident in Pakistan after partition and unable to occupy, supervise or manage her U.P. property. The Court observed that the Division Bench erred in refusing to consider this aspect, especially as the respondent's own writ petition and the orders of the authorities referred to her migration to Pakistan from Persia in 1948 and her continued residence there. The Court further held that the property automatically vested in the Custodian under Section 5 of the U.P. Ordinance, and no notification under Section 6 was necessary. After the repeal of the U.P. Ordinance by Section 58 of the Central Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the property continued to vest in the Custodian without any fresh action under Section 7 of the 1950 Act. Regarding the respondent's reliance on the assurance from the Assistant Custodian that the property was not evacuee property, the Court held that this made no difference, as a government officer's misleading assumption of authority could not affect the statutory vesting; the Court followed Howell v. Falmouth Boat Construction Co. Ltd. and declined to follow Robertson v. Minister of Pensions. Finally, the Court held that once the property was declared evacuee property, the Rs. 42,000 sale consideration deposited in the bank could not also be evacuee property, and that sum must be held in trust for the first respondent. The appeal was allowed and the Division Bench judgment was set aside.
Headnote
A) Evacuee Property - Definition of Evacuee - Applicability of Section 2(c)(ii) - United Provinces Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, Section 2(c)(ii) - The seller, a Muslim woman who left U.P. before March 1, 1947, was resident in Pakistan after partition and unable to occupy, supervise or manage her U.P. property, thus fell within clause (ii) even though clause (i) did not apply because she did not leave U.P. on or after March 1, 1947. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in refusing to consider clause (ii). Held that the seller was an evacuee under Section 2(c)(ii) and the disputed property was evacuee property (Paras 1-6). B) Evacuee Property - Automatic Vesting - No Notification Required - United Provinces Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, Sections 5 and 6 - Evacuee property automatically vested in the Custodian under Section 5, and notification under Section 6 was not a condition for such vesting. Upon repeal and reenactment by the Central Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the property continued to vest in the Custodian without fresh action under Section 7 of the 1950 Act (Paras 1-6). C) Administrative Law - Estoppel Against Statute - Effect of Earlier Misleading Assurance - Central Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Section 58 - The fact that the respondent inquired and was told by the Assistant Custodian that the property was not evacuee property did not affect the legal position, as a government officer's mistaken representation cannot override statutory provisions. The court relied on Howell v. Falmouth Boat Construction Co. Ltd. and rejected Robertson v. Minister of Pensions. Held that the statement did not bar the declaration of evacuee property (Paras 1-6). D) Evacuee Property - Sale Proceeds - Trust for Purchaser - United Provinces Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, Section 2(c) - Once the property was declared evacuee property, the sum of Rs. 42,000 paid as sale consideration and deposited in the bank could not also be evacuee property. Either the property or the proceeds could be evacuee property, not both. Held that the sum must be held in trust for the first respondent (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Mrs. Naqvi was an evacuee under Section 2(c)(ii) of the United Provinces Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949; whether the property automatically vested in the Custodian; whether the earlier representation by the Assistant Custodian that the property was not evacuee property bound the authorities; whether the sale consideration of Rs. 42,000 could also be treated as evacuee property.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court held that Mrs. Naqvi was an evacuee under Section 2(c)(ii) of the United Provinces Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, and the disputed property was evacuee property which had automatically vested in the Custodian under Section 5. The earlier representation by the Assistant Custodian did not preclude the statutory vesting. The sum of Rs. 42,000 deposited as sale consideration was held in trust for the first respondent and could not also be evacuee property. The High Court's Division Bench judgment was set aside.
Law Points
- Evacuee status under Section 2(c)(ii) determined by residence in Pakistan and inability to manage property
- evacuee property automatically vests in Custodian under Section 5 without notification
- a government officer's mistaken assurance cannot override statutory provisions
- sale proceeds held by Custodian are in trust for purchaser and cannot also be evacuee property
- repeal and reenactment by Central Act 1950 continues vesting
