Case Note & Summary
The case arose under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, enacted to manage properties left by persons who migrated to Pakistan after the partition. The appellant, Inayat Ullah, and his brother had inherited certain properties from their father. Upon the brother's death, the appellant claimed to have become the sole heir. However, the Custodian of Evacuee Property issued a notice under Section 7 of the Act in respect of the brother's share, asserting that the brother had left a widow and son who had migrated to Pakistan. The appellant, desiring to know the basis of the notice, applied for copies of the materials on which the Custodian had formed his opinion, but the application was rejected. The appellant then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court, which was dismissed. He subsequently obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that the notice was issued without jurisdiction as there was no adequate material before the Custodian to justify it, and that the refusal to provide copies of the materials was improper. The Supreme Court analyzed the scheme of the Act and held that under Section 7, it is for the Custodian to form his opinion based on such material and information as he possesses. The Court emphasized that it is not for any court to determine whether the information in possession of the Custodian was adequate to justify the issue of a notice. The Court further clarified that the process under the Act involves two stages: the issuing of a notice to persons interested, and the subsequent inquiry. The proceedings commence only after the notice is issued, and the notice is merely initiatory. Consequently, the application for copies of the materials was rightly rejected, as the person interested would have the opportunity to present his case during the inquiry. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the Custodian's action and the High Court's decision.
Headnote
A) Evacuee Property - Issuance of Notice under Section 7 - Custodian's Discretion Not Reviewable - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Section 7 - The Custodian issued notice to the appellant regarding property claimed as evacuee property based on information about migration of heirs. The Court held that it is for the Custodian to form his opinion on such material as is before him and not for any court to determine whether the information in possession of the Custodian was adequate to justify the issue of the notice; therefore, the notice could not be challenged on ground of insufficient material. B) Evacuee Property - Procedure under Section 7 - Two Stages of Notice and Inquiry - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Section 7 - The Act contemplates two distinct stages: the issue of notice to persons interested and the subsequent inquiry. The proceedings commence only after the notice is issued, not prior to it; thus, the notice is initiatory and does not require prior adjudication of rights. C) Evacuee Property - Right to Copies of Materials at Notice Stage - Rejection Proper - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Section 7 - The appellant applied for copies of the materials on the basis of which the Custodian formed his opinion to issue the notice. The Court held that the application for copies had been rightly rejected as the notice stage is merely initiatory and does not entail disclosure of all material; the person interested will have opportunity to present his case during inquiry.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, was issued without jurisdiction, and whether the appellant was entitled to copies of the materials on which the Custodian based his opinion.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Held that it is for Custodian to form opinion on material before him and not for court to review adequacy; application for copies rightly rejected. Notice under Section 7 initiates proceedings and does not require prior adjudication.
Law Points
- Custodian has discretion to form opinion on material before him for issuing notice under Section 7
- court cannot examine adequacy of material
- proceedings under Act commence after notice
- rejection of copies of material at notice stage is proper
