Case Note & Summary
The case involved an application under Article 32 of the Constitution concerning the non-confirmation of a property transaction involving evacuee property. The petitioner, Sadhu Ram, purchased agricultural land from a Muslim evacuee in September 1947, prior to the enactment of the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947. Following the enactment, section 5-A was introduced with retrospective effect, requiring confirmation of such transactions by the Custodian. The petitioner sought confirmation, which was recommended by the Assistant Custodian but ultimately denied by the Additional Custodian based on a policy of non-confirmation for agricultural lands. The petitioner contended that this retrospective application constituted deprivation of property without compensation, violating Article 31 of the Constitution. The court analyzed whether the retrospective nature of section 5-A constituted a deprivation of property. It concluded that the requirement for confirmation was a reasonable restriction rather than a deprivation, thus valid under the law. The court held that the loss incurred by the petitioner was due to a quasi-judicial order and not due to any unconstitutional law, leading to the dismissal of the application without costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Retrospective Operation of Legislation - East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947, Section 5-A - The retrospective operation of section 5-A does not amount to deprivation of property but is a reasonable restriction on future transactions requiring confirmation by the Custodian. The court held that the applicant's loss was due to a quasi-judicial order and not an unconstitutional law, thus rejecting the claim of violation of fundamental rights (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the retrospective operation of section 5-A of the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 amounts to deprivation of property without compensation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the application, holding that the retrospective operation of section 5-A does not amount to deprivation of property but is a reasonable restriction on future transactions requiring confirmation by the Custodian.
Law Points
- Fundamental Rights
- Infringement
- Transfer of evacuee property
- Confirmation by Custodian
- Retrospective effect
- Deprivation of property
- Quasi-judicial order
- Article 32 of the Constitution
