# MAHENDRA PRATAP DUBEY v. MANAGING OFFICER, EVACUEE PROPERTY & ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 13 S.C.R. 791
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-11-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6384 of 2010
- **Bench:** A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mahendra-pratap-dubey-v-managing-officer-evacuee-property-ors-32535
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
1954: s. 10(2)(o) - Sale certificate issued by the custodian of evacuee
property - Validity of - Jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to
determine - On facts, application by respondent no. 3 claiming that
she was occupying the suit property as a owner, having purchased
the same at a public auction and in furtherance whereof sale
certificate was issued in her favour and that respondent No.4,
through whom the appellant claimed his right, title and interest in
the suit property, was causing obstruction to her possession in the
suit property on the basis of some fictitious sale certificate - Allowed
by the Managing Officer (Evacuee Property) and thereafter, upheld
by the Authorities and the High Court - On appeal, held: Application
was moved by respondent no.3 and not by appellant or any of his
stated predecessor-in-title, as such the enquiry into the application
ought to be limited to the fact as to whether the documents relied
upon by respondent no.3 before the authority, to claim that she had
acquired right, title and interest in the suit property as a consequence
of issuance of certificate of sale, were genuine - Furthermore, the
appellant has not been able to establish any causal connection with
the suit property either on account of allotment of the suit property
to him or his predecessors, by the competent authority or otherwise
- Respondent no.4 has not claimed right in respect of the suit
property in any other capacity and appellant has failed to produce
the sale certificate in favour of respondent no.4 issued by the
Custodian of Evacuee Property - In view thereof, respondent no. 4,
or any person claiming through him-appellant, could not be
permitted to question the validity of the sale certificate issued by
the Managing Officer in favour of respondent No.3 and the issue
of jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to deal with the subject
property.
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 791
791
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The application was moved by respondent No.3
and not by the appellant or any of his stated predecessor(s)-intitle. In that situation, the enquiry into the application ought to
be limited to the fact as to whether the documents relied upon by
respondent No.3 before the authority, to claim that she had
acquired right, title and interest in the suit property as a
consequence of issuance of certificate of sale, were genuine.
Neither the appellant nor his predecessor-in-title has challenged
the validity of the said official documents issued in favour of
respondent No.3 before the concerned authority or otherwise.
In the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3, because of the
stand taken by her that respondent No.4 was also claiming right,
title and interest in the suit property by virtue of a sale certificate
issued in his favour by the Custodian, notices were issued by the
competent authority to him as well as others to evoke their
response. However, they failed to produce any document, much
less original documents, evidencing that the Custodian had issued
a sale certificate in respect of the suit property in favour of
respondent No.4. [Para 10][800-D-F]
1.2 The appellant as well as respondent No.4 having failed
to produce any original document and since there was no record
or entry in the official register to show that such a sale certificate
was issued in favour of respondent No.4 by the Department, as
concurrently found by the authorities, it must follow that their
claim in respect of the suit property remained unsubstantiated.
In other words, the appellant has not been able to establish any
causal connection with the suit property either on account of
allotment of the suit property to him or his predecessors, by the
competent authority or otherwise. [Para 11][800-G-H; 801-A]
1.3 The finding of fact and conclusion that sale certificate
issued in favour of respondent no. 3 is valid, came to be affir

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
791
MAHENDRA PRATAP DUBEY
v.
MANAGING OFFICER, EVACUEE PROPERTY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6384 of 2010)
NOVEMBER 16, 2018
[A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
1954: s. 10(2)(o) - Sale certificate issued by the custodian of evacuee
property - Validity of - Jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to
determine - On facts, application by respondent no. 3 claiming that
she was occupying the suit property as a owner, having purchased
the same at a public auction and in furtherance whereof sale
certificate was issued in her favour and that respondent No.4,
through whom the appellant claimed his right, title and interest in
the suit property, was causing obstruction to her possession in the
suit property on the basis of some fictitious sale certificate - Allowed
by the Managing Officer (Evacuee Property) and thereafter, upheld
by the Authorities and the High Court - On appeal, held: Application
was moved by respondent no.3 and not by appellant or any of his
stated predecessor-in-title, as such the enquiry into the application
ought to be limited to the fact as to whether the documents relied
upon by respondent no.3 before the authority, to claim that she had
acquired right, title and interest in the suit property as a consequence
of issuance of certificate of sale, were genuine - Furthermore, the
appellant has not been able to establish any causal connection with
the suit property either on account of allotment of the suit property
to him or his predecessors, by the competent authority or otherwise
- Respondent no.4 has not claimed right in respect of the suit
property in any other capacity and appellant has failed to produce
the sale certificate in favour of respondent no.4 issued by the
Custodian of Evacuee Property - In view thereof, respondent no. 4,
or any person claiming through him-appellant, could not be
permitted to question the validity of the sale certificate issued by
the Managing Officer in favour of respondent No.3 and the issue
of jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to deal with the subject
property.
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 791
791
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The application was moved by respondent No.3
and not by the appellant or any of his stated predecessor(s)-intitle. In that situation, the enquiry into the application ought to
be limited to the fact as to whether the documents relied upon by
respondent No.3 before the authority, to claim that she had
acquired right, title and interest in the suit property as a
consequence of issuance of certificate of sale, were genuine.
Neither the appellant nor his predecessor-in-title has challenged
the validity of the said official documents issued in favour of
respondent No.3 before the concerned authority or otherwise.
In the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3, because of the
stand taken by her that respondent No.4 was also claiming right,
title and interest in the suit property by virtue of a sale certificate
issued in his favour by the Custodian, notices were issued by the
competent authority to him as well as others to evoke their
response. However, they failed to produce any document, much
less original documents, evidencing that the Custodian had issued
a sale certificate in respect of the suit property in favour of
respondent No.4. [Para 10][800-D-F]
1.2 The appellant as well as respondent No.4 having failed
to produce any original document and since there was no record
or entry in the official register to show that such a sale certificate
was issued in favour of respondent No.4 by the Department, as
concurrently found by the authorities, it must follow that their
claim in respect of the suit property remained unsubstantiated.
In other words, the appellant has not been able to establish any
causal connection with the suit property either on account of
allotment of the suit property to him or his predecessors, by the
competent authority or otherwise. [Para 11][800-G-H; 801-A]
1.3 The finding of fact and conclusion that sale certificate
issued in favour of respondent no. 3 is valid, came to be affirmed
by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority for
which reason the High Court declined to interfere. Once it is
held that no sale certificate issued in favour of respondent No.4
by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, under the 1950 Act is
forthcoming nor any entry in the official register is found in that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
793
regard, all persons claiming through him (including the appellant)
must suffer the consequences of such a finding of fact. Notably,
respondent No.4 has not claimed right in respect of the suit
property in any other capacity, and in that view of the matter, it
cannot be understood as to how respondent no. 4, or any person
claiming through him, could be permitted to question the validity
of the sale certificate issued by the Managing Officer in favour of
respondent No.3. [Para 12][802-E-G]
1.4 The appellant, having failed to produce the sale
certificate in favour of respondent No.4 issued by the Custodian
of Evacuee Property under the 1950 Act, he cannot be heard to
raise the issue of jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to deal
with the subject property, including the validity of the sale
certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3. A deeper enquiry
as to how the Managing Officer assumed jurisdiction to issue the
sale certificate in favour of respondent No.3 would become
relevant and essential only if the appellant was able to substantiate
the fact, at least prima facie, that the suit property was, in fact,
transferred in favour of respondent No.4 by the Custodian of
Evacuee Property under the 1950 Act. [Para 14][803-B-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6384
of 2010
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2007 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30158 of
1995.
Anurag Dubey, Ms. Anu Sawhney, Bhupendra Kr. Bhardwaj,
Sanchit Maheshwari for Mohan Pandey, Advs. for the appellant.
Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, E. C. Agrawala, Rajesh Kumar Advs for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated
26th February, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.30158 of 1995, whereby the writ petition
filed by the appellant challenging the decision of the Chief Settlement
MAHENDRA PRATAP DUBEY v. MANAGING OFFICER,
EVACUEE PROPERTY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
Commissioner, Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow was rejected. The
Assistant Custodian/Managing Officer (Evacuee Property), Board of
Revenue, Lucknow had allowed the application filed by respondent No.3
- Mainmum Nissa @ Kumani, W/o Subrati @ Algu, R/o Village
Singramau, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur, U.P., accepting her claim
that she was occupying the suit property as owner thereof, having
purchased the same at a public auction and in furtherance whereof a
certificate of sale came to be issued in her favour and that respondent
No.4 - Mohd. Sattar @ Mokhan (through whom the appellant claims his
right, title and interest in the suit property) was causing obstruction to
her possession in the suit property on the basis of some fictitious sale
certificate dated 30th September, 1968.
2. Be it noted that the statutory authorities and the High Court
have concurrently found that Ram Abhilakh (through whom the appellant
claims to have acquired title in the suit property), to whom notice was
issued by the authority and opportunity was given to produce the official
record in his possession to substantiate that he had acquired title in the
suit property pursuant to a transfer by the Custodian in favour of Md.
Sattar @ Mokhan, failed to do so. He avoided filing any document.
Further, there was no record or any entry in the official register to show
that any sale certificate was issued in favour of Md. Sattar @ Mokhan
by the concerned department.
3. On the other hand, it has been concurrently held that respondent
No.3 had produced a certificate of sale dated 7th August, 1965 in her
favour issued by the competent authority in reference to an auction
conducted on 12th July, 1962, at which she purchased the subject property.
Further, there was nothing to discredit the documents and the testimony
of respondent No.3 that she had acquired right, title and interest in the
suit property by virtue of a certificate of sale in her favour. Such finding
has been recorded by the first authority vide judgment and order dated
4th May, 1985 and confirmed by the Collector, District Jaunpur, by
dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant bearing Case No.8/
1984/522 decided on 7th October, 1988 and further upheld by the Chief
Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Lucknow, U.P., being the
revisional authority, by dismissing the revision of the appellant bearing
Revision No.1(RR) No./1988-89) District Jaunpur, decided on 5th August,
1995. The High Court, therefore, declined to interfere in exercise of its
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
795
writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant
vide impugned judgment and order.
4. The moot question agitated by the appellant before the concerned
authorities and up till the High Court, was that the Managing Officer,
appointed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of
a sale certificate issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property in exercise
of the powers conferred upon him under Section 10(2)(o) of the
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. This contention, however,
did not find favour with either the authorities or the High Court in view
of the findings of fact recorded against the appellant. The appellant was
neither able to assail the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
authorities before the High Court nor did he produce the original sale
certificate dated 30th November, 1968 purportedly issued in favour of
respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan), who had transferred the
property to one Shri Vishwanath S/o Kukhekahar who in turn transferred
the same to Ram Abhilakh S/o Parmananad, R/o Shahganj, District
Jaunpur, from whom the appellant claims to have acquired the same.
5. In the present appeal, the appellant has contended that if an
Indian citizen had left India to live in Pakistan, his property would become
an evacuee property as defined in Section 2(f) of the 1950 Act; and
whence the Custodian alone would have the power under Section 10 of
the 1950 Act to transfer such property in the manner prescribed by the
1950 Act. Further, such evacuee property could indeed be acquired under
Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act, 1954 by the Central Government, consequent to which the property
would lose the status of an evacuee property and the Custodian would
be divested of its power to deal with the same. That property would then
become a part of the compensation pool as envisaged under Section 14
of the 1954 Act and only thereafter, could the Managing Officer assume
control or authority over the same and dispose it of in the manner specified
under Section 20 of the 1954 Act. On facts, it has been argued on
behalf of the appellant that respondent No.3 admits that the property is
an evacuee property and has not claimed that it is a compensation pool
property. For, in the suit filed by the husband of respondent No.3 (Subrati),
being suit No.520/1982, it was asserted that the evacuee property has
been auctioned off to respondent No.3 by the Custodian; but in the subject
MAHENDRA PRATAP DUBEY v. MANAGING OFFICER,
EVACUEE PROPERTY [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
796
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
application dated 30th April, 1982 field before the Managing Officer,
respondent No.3 claims that the suit property was purchased in an auction
and consideration amount was deposited in the office of the Managing
Officer and the sale certificate dated 7th August, 1965 came to be issued
in her favour by the Managing Officer. Similarly, in the counter affidavit
filed before this Court, respondent No.3 had claimed that the property
was transferred to her by the Managing Officer. In substance, the
argument is that respondent No.3 has taken a contradictory stand before
different authorities and courts, which must militate against her.
6. The contesting respondent, on the other hand, would contend
that regard being had to the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the
authorities concerned and also upheld by the High Court, the sole issue
raised by the appellant about the jurisdiction of the Managing Officer
does not merit any interference. An abstract debate bereft of any proof
produced by the appellant to establish that the suit property was
transferred to respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan) by the Custodian
in terms of sale certificate dated 30th November, 1968, does not merit
examination. The question whether such a sale certificate was issued
and, in fact, exists, could certainly be examined by the Managing Officer
before whom the subject application dated 30th April, 1982 was filed by
respondent No.3, by virtue of the enabling provision in Section 19 and
the bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts in terms of Section 36 of 1954
Act. In such an enquiry, all aspects were open including to determine as
to whether the sale certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 by
the office of the Managing Officer, is valid. It is submitted that all the
authorities including the High Court have concurrently found that the
sale certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 in respect of suit
property dated 7th August, 1965 was genuine and valid. Furthermore, it
has been concurrently found against the appellant that despite sufficient
opportunity, his predecessor-in-title Ram Abhilakh S/o Parmanand did
not produce any document; nor did respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @
Mokhan), through whom he (appellant) had claimed right, title and interest
in the suit property, produce the original transfer document issued by the
Custodian to prove the genuineness of the transaction and further there
was no record or any entry in the official register evidencing that any
sale certificate was issued in favour of respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @
Mokhan) by the department. In that view of the matter, the question of
law sought to be agitated by the appellant about the authority of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
797
Managing Officer to decide the matter in issue concerning the sale
certificate issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property under the 1950
Act would be tenuous and the Court should not enter upon that issue.
7. We have heard Mr. Anurag Dubey, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents.
8. Indisputably, the respondent No.3 had filed an application before
the Assistant Custodian/Managing Officer (Evacuee Property), Board
of Revenue, Lucknow, which highlighted two aspects. First, that it be
declared or directed that she had acquired right, title and interest in the
suit property by virtue of the sale certificate dated 7th August, 1965
issued by the Managing Officer. Second, the claim of respondent No.4
(Md. Sattar @ Mokhan) that the suit property was transferred in his
favour by virtue of a sale certificate dated 30th November, 1968, issued
by the Custodian is non-existent and not genuine.
9. Respondent No.3 in the subject application had asserted that
she had purchased the suit property at a public auction held on 12th July,
1962; and after payment of the sale consideration in the office of the
Managing Officer, a certificate of sale was issued in her favour on 7th
August, 1965. To buttress this submission, reliance has been placed by
respondent No.3 - Mainmum Nissa @ Kumani on (i) Receipt issued by
the Office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, U.P., accepting
the consideration amount paid by her, (ii) Acceptance Letter issued by
the Assistant Custodian, Government of India, dated 10th June, 1965,
and (iii) Certificate of Sale issued under the signature of the Managing
Officer, Varanasi. The said documents read thus:
"Annexure -R2
EVACUEE SIRAI
FORM NO.1
 OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
UTTAR PRADESH
Srl. No. 4209
Receipt No.30
Dated: 12.7.62
Received from Mst. Maimunnisha alias Kumman, 170/- (Rupees
One hundred seventy only) by cash on account of rent / licence
MAHENDRA PRATAP DUBEY v. MANAGING OFFICER,
EVACUEE PROPERTY [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
798
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
fee / licence money in respect of / as earnest money for
KacchaKhander house of Evacuee Sirai in Village Sgramau, Teh.
Shahganj, Jaunpur.
Previous Receipt No. Dated
Note: Where payment is made by cheque and the cheque is
dishonoured by the bank, the receipt will be rendered in valid.
H/B (highest bid) 1700/-
Sd/ (illegible)
12.7.62
Jr. Accountant
Subject to the approval of higher authorities"
"Annexure R-3
Form No. IX
ACCEPTANCE LETTER
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTER OF REHABILITATION
Office of the Assistant Custodian
District Varanasi
Dated: 10.6.1965
Smt. Maimun Nisha alias Kumman w/o Subrati alias (illegible)
Shahganj, Jaunpur.
Subject: Sale Kaccha House Khander,
Situated at: Sigramau, Shahganj, Jaunpur.
Evacuee: Sirai
You are hereby informed that you bid dated 12 July, 1962 for Rs.
1700/- for the above noted property, has been accepted. You are
further required to send by pot or to produce before the
undersigned a treasury challan for the deposit of balance money
of sale price amounting to Rs.1530/-, under Central head "SDeposits and Advances - Part IV Suspense Accounts - P.A.O.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
799
Suspense - Transactions Adjustable with Pay and Accounts Office,
Rehabilitation Delhi - Finally Adjustable by P.A.O. under the Head
S - Deposits and Advances - Part II Deposits not bearing Interest
- IVIL Deposits - Personal Deposits - Deposits on Account of
Un-acquired Evacuee Property", within 15 days from the date of
issue of this letter.
Sd/-
(B.B. VERMA)
Assistant Custodian"
"Annexure R-4
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION
OFFICE OF THE MANAGING OFFICER
VARANASI
APPENDIX XXII
CERTIFICATE OF SALE
(Free Hold Property)
Rule 90(15)
Dated:7.8.1965
This is to certify that Smt. Maimun Nisha alias Kamman w/o
Subrati resident of Sigramau, Shahganj, Jaunpur having given the
highest bid at a sale by public auction held in pursuance of the
powers conferred upon me under Section 20 of the Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954)
on the 12th day of July 1962 of the properly described in the
Schedule and his bid having been accepted and the valid thereof
having been paid by him in cash/ by adjustment of compensation
due on his and his associates claims has been declared the
purchaser of the said property with effect from 25th day of June
1965. Given under my hand and seal of my office this 26th June of
1965.
SCHEDULE
Kaccha House Khander
EVACUEE
Sigramau, Evacuee
Sirai Sale price 1700/-
Shahganj, Sirai
Jaunpur
MAHENDRA PRATAP DUBEY v. MANAGING OFFICER,
EVACUEE PROPERTY [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
East - House of Jokhu& Field
West - House of Gaya Dargai
North - Road
South - House of Dase
Sd/-
(B.B. Verma)
Managing Officer
Varanasi"
10. From the acceptance letter, it is noticeable that it has been
issued under the signature of one B.B. Verma, Assistant Custodian and
the same person issued a certificate of sale in his capacity as Managing
Officer. It must be kept in mind that the application was moved by
respondent No.3 and not by the appellant or any of his stated
predecessor(s)-in-title. In that situation, the enquiry into the application
ought to be limited to the fact as to whether the documents relied upon
by respondent No.3 before the authority, to claim that she had acquired
right, title and interest in the suit property as a consequence of issuance
of certificate of sale, were genuine. Neither the appellant nor his
predecessor-in-title has challenged the validity of the said official
documents issued in favour of respondent No.3 before the concerned
authority or otherwise. In the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3,
because of the stand taken by her that respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @
Mokhan) was also claiming right, title and interest in the suit property by
virtue of a sale certificate issued in his favour by the Custodian, notices
were issued by the competent authority to him as well as Vishwanath S/
o Sukhi and Ram Abhilakh S/o Parmanand to evoke their response.
Despite opportunity given by the competent authority, they failed to
produce any document, much less original documents, evidencing that
the Custodian had issued a sale certificate in respect of the suit property
in favour of respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan).
11. The appellant as well as respondent No.4 having failed to
produce any original document and since there was no record or entry in
the official register to show that such a sale certificate was issued in
favour of respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan) by the Department,
as concurrently found by the authorities, it must follow that their claim in
respect of the suit property remained unsubstantiated. In other words,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
801
the appellant has not been able to establish any causal connection with
the suit property either on account of allotment of the suit property to
him or his predecessors, by the competent authority or otherwise. The
Assistant Custodian on analysing the factual position in its judgment
observed thus:
"I have gone through the file and found there is no such documents
have been filed by the objector whose genuineness can be
examined except the objection which has been filed on behalf of
O.P. Sri Ram Abhilakh stating that this tribunal has got no
jurisdiction to examine the genuineness of sale certificate that
which one is correct out of these two documents.
In this regard I have to mention that this has been the consistent
view of the higher tribunal under the O.P. (C & P) Act No. 44 of
1954, that in a case in which the nature of each complaint is that
some forged deeds have been reported to have been issued by
the Assistant Castodian/Managing Officer the said officer can
meet enquiries and can ask the person concerned to produced the
relevant papers to examine their veracity find out if any such
deed was at all issued. In this connection a copy of order of Sri
Prem Narain, Settlement Commissioner (Judicial) passed on
11.10.76 in appeal No.14/SC/PN/U/70,SriMohd. Shamim Vs.
Managing Officer, Lucknow was filed as an examper, in which it
has been held that the Managing Officer can certainly look into
the matter on receipt of complaint and can pass appropriate order
on that basis. Accordingly, the parties were directed to produce
relevant papers, the applicant Smt. MaimunNissa filed the original
& photo copy of receipt of earnest money, acceptance letter dt.
10.6.65 and the sale certificate dt. 7.7.65 referred to above, and
supported her contention on affidavit. Sri Ram Abhilekh did not
produce any document and also did not produce Sri Mohd. Satar
@ Mohkan the alleged original transferred from the custodian to
prove the genuineness of the transaction. On the other hand the
evaded to file the documentation the plea that the same cannot be
looked into by the tribunal; which as stated above can always be
looked in this circumstances of the case.
In the absence of any papers or evidence of Sri Ram Abilekh
the matter was examined with the available records.
MAHENDRA PRATAP DUBEY v. MANAGING OFFICER,
EVACUEE PROPERTY [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
The connected file shows that first the house was put to
sale on 16.3.62 when the bid of Smt. Amina was the highest
for Rs.1210/- and an amount of Rs.121/- was deposited but
subsequently for non deposit the balance money the sale
was cancelled and the earnest money deposited was
forfeited.
It further seems from the documents filed that the house
was put to sale on 12.7.82 and it was knocked down in favour
of MaimunNissa, who deposited Rs.170/- as earnest money
and on receipt of acceptance letter dt.10.6..... she deposited
the balance sale consideration money on 26.6.65 and
thereafter the certificate of sale was issued in her favour
on 7.7.65 by Sri B.B. Verma, Managing Officer, Varanasi. I
have seen the original documents. There is nothing to
discredit the said documents and the testimony of Smt.
MaimumNissa. There is no record in the office or any entry
in the office register to show that any Sale Certificate was
issued in favour of Mohd. Sattar @ Mohkan by this
department. The sale certificate issued in favour of Smt.
MaimunNissa is accordingly held valid."
(emphasis supplied)
12. This finding of fact and conclusion came to be affirmed by the
Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority for which reason
the High Court declined to interfere. Once it is held that no sale certificate
issued in favour of respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan) by the
Custodian of Evacuee Property, under the 1950 Act is forthcoming nor
any entry in the official register is found in that regard, all persons claiming
through him (including the appellant) must suffer the consequences of
such a finding of fact. Notably, respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan)
has not claimed right in respect of the suit property in any other capacity,
and in that view of the matter, we fail to understand as to how Md.
Sattar @ Mokhan, or any person claiming through him, could be permitted
to question the validity of the sale certificate dated 7th August, 1965
issued by the Managing Officer in favour of respondent No.3 (Mainmum
Nissa @ Kumani).
13. The appellant had placed emphasis on the finding rendered in
the civil suit filed by the husband of respondent No.3, for permanent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
803
injunction against respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan). However,
we agree with the concurrent view taken by the authority concerned
that the said finding will be of no avail to the appellant. For, respondent
No. 3 was not impleaded as a party in the said suit.
14. Suffice it to observe that the appellant, having failed to produce
the sale certificate in favour of respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan)
issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property under the 1950 Act, he
cannot be heard to raise the issue of jurisdiction of the Managing Officer
to deal with the subject property, including the validity of the sale
certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3. A deeper enquiry as to
how the Managing Officer assumed jurisdiction to issue the sale certificate
in favour of respondent No.3 would become relevant and essential only
if the appellant was able to substantiate the fact, at least prima facie,
that the suit property was, in fact, transferred in favour of respondent
No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan) by the Custodian of Evacuee Property
under the 1950 Act. Accordingly, this appeal must fail.
15. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Nidhi Jain
 Appeal dismissed.
MAHENDRA PRATAP DUBEY v. MANAGING OFFICER,
EVACUEE PROPERTY [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]