# _, ' •· ' I MOHD. FAISUDDIN KHAN v. GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 779
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-11-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2409 of 1969
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, R. S. Sarkaria, P. N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/i-mohd-faisuddin-khan-v-govt-of-india-ors-6551
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

779
Displaced Perso;:s (Co111pensatio11 and Relwbilita.ion) Act (44 of 1954) SS·
12 and 13-Scope df.
When a notification is published under s. 12( 1) of the Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, under s. 12(2) the right, title
and interest of the evacuee in the evacuee property is extinguished and the
property vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
Section 13 of the Act provides for the payment of compensation for such
acquisition in accordance with the principles agreed upon between the Government of India and Pakistan. No such principles of compensation hnd, however,
been agreed upon between the two Governments.
The appellant was declared an evacuee and his property as evacuee property.
When the notification under s. 12 was issued, he challenged it but the High
. \.
B
c
Court dismissed his writ petition holding that the vesting in the Central GovernD
ment was unconditional and did not depend upon the fixation or payment of
compensation under s. 13.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( l) In the face of the clear prov1S1on in s. 12(2), it could not be
contended that the evacuee property did not vest in the Central Government
until compensation for its acquisition had been determined and paid.
[78 lF]
(2) The appellant could not rely on Art. 31(2) because, Art. 31(5) exE
preS>ly provides that it shall not affect the provisions of any law which the State
may make either in pursuance of an agreement with the Government of any
other country "or otherwise".
So even in the absence of an agreement with
the Government of Pakistan, it is permissible for the State to make the Act,
and its provisions would not be affected by anything contained in Art. 31(2).
[781CD]
(3) Under s. 13, compensation would have been payable to the appellant in
accordance with any principles agreed upon between the Government of India
F
and Pakistan.
Therefore, in the absence of such an agreement, the appel!ant
would not be entitled to claim any compensation.
[781-E]

## Text

......_,
'
•·
' I
MOHD. FAISUDDIN KHAN
v.
GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS .
November 25, 1975
[A. N. RAY, C. J., M. H. BEG, R. S. SARKARIA AND
P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]
779
Displaced Perso;:s (Co111pensatio11 and Relwbilita.ion) Act (44 of 1954) SS·
12 and 13-Scope df.
When a notification is published under s. 12( 1) of the Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, under s. 12(2) the right, title
and interest of the evacuee in the evacuee property is extinguished and the
property vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
Section 13 of the Act provides for the payment of compensation for such
acquisition in accordance with the principles agreed upon between the Government of India and Pakistan. No such principles of compensation hnd, however,
been agreed upon between the two Governments.
The appellant was declared an evacuee and his property as evacuee property.
When the notification under s. 12 was issued, he challenged it but the High
. \.
B
c
Court dismissed his writ petition holding that the vesting in the Central GovernD
ment was unconditional and did not depend upon the fixation or payment of
compensation under s. 13.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( l) In the face of the clear prov1S1on in s. 12(2), it could not be
contended that the evacuee property did not vest in the Central Government
until compensation for its acquisition had been determined and paid.
[78 lF]
(2) The appellant could not rely on Art. 31(2) because, Art. 31(5) exE
preS>ly provides that it shall not affect the provisions of any law which the State
may make either in pursuance of an agreement with the Government of any
other country "or otherwise".
So even in the absence of an agreement with
the Government of Pakistan, it is permissible for the State to make the Act,
and its provisions would not be affected by anything contained in Art. 31(2).
[781CD]
(3) Under s. 13, compensation would have been payable to the appellant in
accordance with any principles agreed upon between the Government of India
F
and Pakistan.
Therefore, in the absence of such an agreement, the appel!ant
would not be entitled to claim any compensation.
[781-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2409
of
1969.
From the Judgment and order
dated the 19th July, 1968 of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 1994 of 1964.
G
K. Rajendra Chowdhary and
Mrs. Surendra
Krishnan for the
Appellant.
I. N. Sinha, Sol. General, Girish Chandra for Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHINGHAL, J.-This appeal by certificate is directed against the
judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated July 19,
1968. It is not in dispute that appellant Mohd. Faisuddin Khan is
H
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
780
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976) 2 S.C.R.
a c1t1zen of India, and was declared an evacuee by an order of the
Deputy Custodia".1 of Evacuee Property, Hyderabad, dated
Septem-
' ber 18, 1951.
His property, consisting of a building and 35~ acre·s
of land, was declared to be evacuee property.
The Custodian of
Evacuee Property issued a notice to the appellant on April 5, 1961
calling upon him to surrender possession of the property.
That was
followed by a notification dated January 20, 1962, of the Central
Government, under s.12 of the Displaced
Persons (Compensation
and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act,
by which that government acquired all properties which had been
declared to be evacuee properties, for a purpose connected with _the
relief and rehailitation of displaced
persons,
including payment
of compensation.
The appellant, challenged the aforesaid notification
as unconstitutional and applied for writ of certiorarai on a proper construction of ss.12 and 15 of the Act.
In its impugned judgment, the
High Court has taken the view that on publication of the notification
under s. 12 ( 1) of the Act, the right, title a:ad interest of the evacuee
was extinguished in the evacuee property and it vested absolutely in
the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
That, in the
view of the High Court, was unconditional, and was not made to
depend upon the fixation or payment of compensation under section
13, notwithstanding the fact that the principles for payment of compensation had not been agreed upon between the Governments
of
India and Pakistan and had not therefore b.een fixed.
It has
also
been held that the words "or otherwise" in article 31 (5) (b) (iii) of
the ConstitutiQn are sufficiently wide and the protection of the article
extends to the relevant provisions of the Act so that there could be
no successful challenge on the basis of article 31 (2). The evacuee
feels aggrieved arid has file_d the present appeal.
It has been argued by counsel for the appellant that the view
taken by the High Court is not correct, and that acquisition of the
appellant's property under s. 12 of the Act was not immune from
challe'age under article 31 (5) (b) (iii) of the Constitution because
no compensation had been. paid or was proposed to be paid for the
acquired property.
·
It will be recalled that a notification was issued by the Central
Government under s. 12 of the Act to acquire the property of the
appellant for rehabilitation of displaced persons. That notification
was published in the gazette and, by virtue of sub-s. (2) of that section, the right, title and interest of the appellant in
that property
(which was admittedly evacuee property) was extinguished and the
property vested "absolutely in the Central Government free from all
encumbraJ:?ces."
Section 13 of the Act provides for the payment of
compensat10n for such acquisition "in accordance with such principles and in such ll}anner as may be agreed upon between the Governments of. India and Pakist~n.:· Section 14 of the Act goes further
and provides for the conshtutio'.1 of a compensation pool.
The appellant has, however, been deprived of the benefit of these provisions
because it is the admitted case of the parties that the agreement envisaged by section 12 has not been arrived at so far between the two
•
\. ...
FAISUDDIN KHAN v. GOVT. OF INDIA (Shi11gluil, J.)
781
Governments.
Even so, that would not, in our opinion, justify the
argument of counsel for the appellant ~hat c:lause (2) of article 3 l __ ?f
the Constitution would become applicable,
for clause 5 (b) (m)
of that article expressly provides as follows :
"(5) Nothing in clause (2) shall affect ....
. . . . . . . . . . . . • ........ -............... .
(b) the provisions of any law which the State may hereafter make ...................... : .
(iii) in pursuance of any agreement entered into
bet1
ween the Government of the
Dominion of India or
the
Government of India and the. Government of any
other
country, or otherwise, with respect to property
declared
by Jaw to be evacuee property."
(Emphasis added).
It would thus appear that clause (2) of article 31 will not avail
the appellant because there is an express provision in clause (5) that
it shall not affect the provisions of any law which the State Government may make either in pursuance of an agreement
with
the
Government of any other country "or otherwise".
So even in the
.:;3
absence of an agreement with the Government of Pakistan, -it was
• •
permissible for the State to make the Act, and its provisions would
not be affected by anything contained in clause (2) of article
31
of the Constitution·. It would follow that there is nothing wrong with
the view that compensation would have been payable to the appellant
under sec. 13 of the Act, in accordance with such Principles and in
such manner as might have been agreed upon between the Govern·
ments of India and Pakistan, but not otherwise. The appellant is therefore not entitled to claim such compensation in the absence of the
agreement, and there is nothing wrong with the conclusion arrived at
by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
A
B
c
D
E
The counsel for the appellant tried to argue that the
evacuee
property in question could not have vested in the Central Government
F
' t
I
until compensation for its acquisition had been determined and paid.
The argument is however quite futile in face of the clear provision
of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act that on the publication
of the notification under sub-section (1), the right, title and interest of the evacuee shall be extinguished in the evacuee property and
it "shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances."
.\!• .,:1
G
There is thus no force in this appeal and it is dis~issed but in
the circumstances of the case, without any order as to the costs.
'
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.