Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shaikh Mohammad Murghay and Smt. Sheela Ravindra Lakhanpal, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 5 December 2005 passed by the Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Relief and Rehabilitation, Government of Maharashtra (respondent no. 2) under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954. The order rejected their claim for restoration of a property bearing Survey No. 487, which had been notified as evacuee property under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1947, by a notification dated 17 August 1950. The petitioners contended that they were the owners and in possession of the property and that the notification was erroneous. They sought restoration of the property. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and CIDCO, opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioners failed to provide any evidence of ownership or possession. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the burden of proof was on the petitioners to establish their claim. Since they produced no documentary evidence to show title or possession prior to the notification, the order under Section 33 was valid. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the claim.
Headnote
A) Evacuee Property - Restoration Claim - Section 33 Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 - Burden of Proof - The petitioners claimed restoration of property notified as evacuee property under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1947. The court held that the burden lies on the claimant to prove ownership and possession prior to notification. The petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish their title or possession. The order under Section 33 was upheld. (Paras 2-5)
B) Evacuee Property - Notification under Section 7 of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1947 - Presumption of Evacuee Status - Once a property is notified as evacuee property under Section 7, there is a presumption that it belonged to an evacuee. The court held that the petitioners did not rebut this presumption. The claim for restoration was rightly rejected. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954, rejecting the petitioners' claim for restoration of evacuee property, is legal and valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 5.12.2005 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 is upheld.
Law Points
- Evacuee property
- Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act
- 1954
- Section 33
- burden of proof
- ownership
- possession
- notification under Section 7 of Administration of Evacuee Property Act
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (05) 18
Writ Petition No. 944 of 2006
D. D. Sinha, Smt. V. K. Tahilramani
Dr. V. V. Tulzapurkar, Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Mr. V. A. Gangal, Mr. A. T. Gade for Petitioners; Mr. V. S. Gokhale for State; Mr. G. S. Hegde for CIDCO
Shaikh Mohammad Murghay and Smt. Sheela Ravindra Lakhanpal
State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Relief and Rehabilitation, Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, Evacuee Properties, Collector of Raigad, Tahsildar of Panvel, City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 rejecting claim for restoration of evacuee property.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 5.12.2005 and restoration of the property.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed ownership and possession of property notified as evacuee property and challenged the rejection of their restoration claim.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 5.12.2005 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 33 of the Act of 1954 rejecting the claim.
Issues
Whether the petitioners have proved their ownership and possession of the property in question?
Whether the order under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were owners and in possession of the property and the notification under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act was erroneous.
Respondents contended that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence of ownership or possession and the order was correct.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish ownership and possession of property notified as evacuee property. Failure to produce documentary evidence results in rejection of the claim.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners are challenging the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2 – Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation, Government of Maharashtra under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954.
The facts which has given rise for filing of this petition in nutshell and as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows: (I) By a Notification dated 17.8.1950 issued under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, certain properties were notified as Evacuee properties which included, interalia, a property bearing Survey No. 487...
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954. The court heard arguments and dismissed the petition on 11.05.2012.
Acts & Sections
- Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954: 33
- Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1947: 7
