# Oclob.r 28. J95li Sadhu Ram v. Tire CuslodianGmual of Eoacue1 Proper!,]

- **Citation:** [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1113
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1955
- **Bench:** S. R. DAs, Acting C.J, VIVIAN BosE, Jagannadhadas, Jafer Imam, Chandrasekhara Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/oclob-r-28-j95li-sadhu-ram-v-tire-cuslodiangmual-of-eoacue1-proper-1237
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Fundamental
Rights,
Infringement of-Transfer of evacuee
property-Requirement of confirmation by Custodian-Retrospective
effect, if amounts to deprivation of property-If a reasonable restriction-Refusal of confirmation by quasi-judicial order based on irrelevant material-Application under Art. 32, if
maintainable-Constitution of India, Arts. 19, 31, 32-East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (East Punjab Act XIV of 1947) as
amended by East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Pr'bperty)
(Amendment) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act XXVI of 1948), s. 5-A.
The applicant purchased
certain
agricultural
lands
from a
Muslim evacuee. The sale deed was executed, registered and possession was delivered to the applicant in September, 1947, before the
East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property)
Act of
1947
came into
operation on the 12th of December,
1947.
By subsequent amendments a new
section,
s. 5-A, was
inserted into the
Act with retrospective effect from the 15th of August, 1947, render·
ing transactions in respect
of
evacuee property
ineffective unless
confirmed by the Custodian. The applicant
applied for confirmation.
The Assistant Custodian recommended such confirmation but
the Additional Custodian, acting in terms of a circular issued by the
Custodian-General enunciating a policy
of non-confirmation with
regard
to agricultural lands,
refused to
confirm the applicant's
purchase and this order was affirmed by the Assistant CustodianGeneral in revision.
It was contended on behalf of the
applicant,
inter alia, that the retrospective oper;ition of s. 5-A of the Act was
in effect a
deprivation of property without compensation and was
hit by Art. 31 of the Constitution.
Held that s. 5-A of the East Punjab Evacuees'
(Administration
of Property) Act though retrospective in operation does not amount
to deprivation of
property in respect of
past transactions and is
valid.
In
respect of future transactions
the requirement of con1955
P. L. Laklianpal
v.
T"4 Stale of
Jammu and
Kashmir
Sinha J.
1955
Oclob.r 28.
J95li
Sadhu Ram
v.
Tire CuslodianGmual of Eoacue1
Proper!,]
1114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
firmation is clearly a
restriction
and not
a deprivation.
Such
restriction \Vas also reasonable having
regard to the purpose and
policy of the Evacuee Property Law. The requirement of confirmation being thus in essence only a restriction and not a deprivation,
retrospectivity in the operation of that restriction does not make it
deprivation.
That the applicant's loss
\Vas occasioned not by any unconstitutional la\V but by a quasi-judicial order of the Custodian refusing
confirmation
ari_d~
consequently,
his contention
that any fundamental right had been violated must be rejected.
'['hat even
if
the contention that the order was itself illegal
being based on irrelevant material be correct,
that did not by itself
raise any question of violation of any fundamental right and would
be no ground for an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
ORIGINAL
JuR1so1cT10N : Petition No. 306 of 1954.
U ndcr Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Kundan Lal Mehta and B.RL. Iyengar, for the
petitioner.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India
(Porus
A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, with him) for the respondent.
1955. October 28. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
JAGANNADHADAS J.-This
is
an
application
under
article 32 of the Constitution which arises under the
following circumstances. The pet1t1oner, Sadht1 Ram,
purchased from one lmam-ud-Din, a muslim evacuee,
43 Bighas
14 Biswas
of agricultural land comprised in
Khasra Nos. 2135 to 2139, 2158, 2159,
2171, 2204 and
2206 with Sham/at rights in village Kaithal, District
Karna!,
Punjab. The sale deed was executed on the
6th September, 1947, and registered on the 9th September, 1947, before
lmam-ud-Din left for Pakistan. The
cons1deration
therefore was Rs. 3,000 and as much as
Rs. 2,700 thereof appears to have been paid by
the
petitioner
to
the
vend

## Text

I
2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1113
For the reasons aforesaid it must be held that there
ts no merit in the application
and the rule
is accordingly discharged, and the application is dismissed.
SADHU RAM
v.
THE CUSTODIAN-GENERAL OF EVACUEE
PROPERTY.
[S. R. DAs, ACTING C.J., VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS, JAFER IMAM and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.]
Fundamental
Rights,
Infringement of-Transfer of evacuee
property-Requirement of confirmation by Custodian-Retrospective
effect, if amounts to deprivation of property-If a reasonable restriction-Refusal of confirmation by quasi-judicial order based on irrelevant material-Application under Art. 32, if
maintainable-Constitution of India, Arts. 19, 31, 32-East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (East Punjab Act XIV of 1947) as
amended by East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Pr'bperty)
(Amendment) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act XXVI of 1948), s. 5-A.
The applicant purchased
certain
agricultural
lands
from a
Muslim evacuee. The sale deed was executed, registered and possession was delivered to the applicant in September, 1947, before the
East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property)
Act of
1947
came into
operation on the 12th of December,
1947.
By subsequent amendments a new
section,
s. 5-A, was
inserted into the
Act with retrospective effect from the 15th of August, 1947, render·
ing transactions in respect
of
evacuee property
ineffective unless
confirmed by the Custodian. The applicant
applied for confirmation.
The Assistant Custodian recommended such confirmation but
the Additional Custodian, acting in terms of a circular issued by the
Custodian-General enunciating a policy
of non-confirmation with
regard
to agricultural lands,
refused to
confirm the applicant's
purchase and this order was affirmed by the Assistant CustodianGeneral in revision.
It was contended on behalf of the
applicant,
inter alia, that the retrospective oper;ition of s. 5-A of the Act was
in effect a
deprivation of property without compensation and was
hit by Art. 31 of the Constitution.
Held that s. 5-A of the East Punjab Evacuees'
(Administration
of Property) Act though retrospective in operation does not amount
to deprivation of
property in respect of
past transactions and is
valid.
In
respect of future transactions
the requirement of con1955
P. L. Laklianpal
v.
T"4 Stale of
Jammu and
Kashmir
Sinha J.
1955
Oclob.r 28.
J95li
Sadhu Ram
v.
Tire CuslodianGmual of Eoacue1
Proper!,]
1114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
firmation is clearly a
restriction
and not
a deprivation.
Such
restriction \Vas also reasonable having
regard to the purpose and
policy of the Evacuee Property Law. The requirement of confirmation being thus in essence only a restriction and not a deprivation,
retrospectivity in the operation of that restriction does not make it
deprivation.
That the applicant's loss
\Vas occasioned not by any unconstitutional la\V but by a quasi-judicial order of the Custodian refusing
confirmation
ari_d~
consequently,
his contention
that any fundamental right had been violated must be rejected.
'['hat even
if
the contention that the order was itself illegal
being based on irrelevant material be correct,
that did not by itself
raise any question of violation of any fundamental right and would
be no ground for an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
ORIGINAL
JuR1so1cT10N : Petition No. 306 of 1954.
U ndcr Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Kundan Lal Mehta and B.RL. Iyengar, for the
petitioner.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India
(Porus
A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, with him) for the respondent.
1955. October 28. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
JAGANNADHADAS J.-This
is
an
application
under
article 32 of the Constitution which arises under the
following circumstances. The pet1t1oner, Sadht1 Ram,
purchased from one lmam-ud-Din, a muslim evacuee,
43 Bighas
14 Biswas
of agricultural land comprised in
Khasra Nos. 2135 to 2139, 2158, 2159,
2171, 2204 and
2206 with Sham/at rights in village Kaithal, District
Karna!,
Punjab. The sale deed was executed on the
6th September, 1947, and registered on the 9th September, 1947, before
lmam-ud-Din left for Pakistan. The
cons1deration
therefore was Rs. 3,000 and as much as
Rs. 2,700 thereof appears to have been paid by
the
petitioner
to
the
vendor
before
the
Sub-Registrar.
Possession also was transferred on the execution of
the
sale-deed.
Mutation was
made
by the
revenue
authorities on the 23rd
January,
1948.
East
Punjab
'
2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1115
Evacuees'
(Administration
of
Property)
Act,
1947
(East Punjab Act XIV of 1947)
came into force on
the 12th of December, 1947. It was amended by East
Punjab
Evacuees'
(Administration
of
Property)
(Amendment)
Ordinance,
1948
(East Punjab Ordinance No. II of 1948) which came into force on the
16th January,
1948. This gave place to East Punjab
Evacuees'
(Administration of Property)
(Amendment)
Act,
1948
(East Punjab Act XXVI of 1948)
which
came into force on the 11th April, 1948.
By these
amendments a new section, section 5-A, was inserted
in the East Punjab Act XIV of 1947. It will be seen
~hat these
amendments were subsequent to the
date
of the execution and registration of the sale-deed and
the transfer
of
possession
thereof.
Section
5-A,
so
far as it is relevant for our present purpose, is in the
following terms :
"5-A. ( 1)
No sale,
mortgage,
pledge, lease,
ex-
.change or other transfer of any interest or right in
or over any property made by an evacuee or by any
person in
anticipation
of
his
becoming an
evacuee,
or by the agent, assign or attorney of the evacuee or
such person on or after the fifteenth day of August,
1947, shall be, effective so as to confer any rights or
remedies on the parties to such transfer or on any
person claiming under them unless it is confirmed by
the Custodian.
(2) An application for
confirming such transfer
may be made by any person claiming thereunder or
by any person lawfully authorised by him".
This section
purports to be retrospective.
Hence an
application for
confirmation was made by the petitioner on the 23rd March, 1948. The Assistant Custodian, Karna], on being satisfied about the genuineness of the transaction,
recommended
confirmation.
But the Additional Custodian, Jullundur, by his order
dated the 11th February, 1953, rejected the application
for
confirmation
acting
on the
CustodianGeneral's circular dated the 9th March, 1950, under
which a policy of not confirming transactions relating
to agricultural
property was enunciated. This was
16-85 S. C. India/59.
1955
Sadhu Ram
v.
The CustodianGeneral of Evacuee
Property
Jatannaahadas ].
1955
Satfhu Ram
v.
Tht CustodianGennal of Evacuee
Property
Jagannadhad as J.
.1116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
affirmed
by
the Assistant
Custodian-General
on an
application to him for revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the
fact
that his
transaction
which,
on
enquiry,
was
held to be genuine, was entered i,nto before the East
Punjab Act XIV of 1947 was enacted and before the
amendment thereof
by insertion
of section 5-A
came
into
operation.
He contends
that
the
retrospective
operation
of
section
5-A
in
such
circumstances
amounts to deprivation of his property, without any
compensation and is, therefore, hit by article 31 of
the Constitution. Whatever may have been the position if this matter had to be dealt with much earlie<,
it seems doubtful whether any such contention can
be raised by the petitioner before us, on this date, in
view of the recent Constitution (Fourth /,::iendment)
Act, 1955, which has
come into force
on the 27th
April, 1955. It is unnecessary, however, to base our
decision on this ground.
It appears to us clear that section 5-A cannot be
read as a legislative provision depriving the owner of
his property. The;·e can be no doubt that so far as
transactions
subsequent to
the
date of
amendment
are concerned, it is nothing more than
a restriction
on the transfer of propert;· by
the owner thereof.
Any transferee in such a situation takes the property
subject to the requirement of confirmation. The case
would, then, be one which falls under article 19 of
the Constitution and not nnder article 31. There can
be no doubt that having regard to the purpose and
policy underlying the hw relating to
Evacuee Property and the abnormal conditions which arose from
and after the 15th August, 1947, th' requirement of
confirmation
with
reference to
transactions
affecting
Evacuee Property cannot but be considered ·a reasonble
restriction. If this
requirement
was
in
essence
not a deprivation but a .restriction in respect of future
transactions,
thero?.
is
no
reason
for
treating it as
deprivation hy virtue of its having been given retrospective effect,
such retrospectivity being within the
competence of the 3ppropriate legislature. The retrospectivity commencin~ from the 15th August, 1947, is
2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1117
also not only reasonable but called for in the circumstances, which occasioned the Evacuee Property laws.
In this case the petitioner is deprived of his bargain
and incurs consequential loss, not by virtue of any
unconstitutional law
but by reason of the
quasijudicial order of the Custodian declining to confirm
the transaction. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that any fundamental right of
his has been violated must, therefore, be reiected.
Learned counsel next urges that the action of the
Custodian in basing his decision on some circular of
the Custodian-General is illegal and that it is not relevant material under section 5-A. It is enough to
say that even if this contention be correct, this does
not raise
any
question of violation of fundamental
rights. If this is the sole ground, this application is
misconceived.
·
This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but
in the circuqistances without costs.
INDIRA SOHANLAL
ti.
CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY,
DELHI & OTHERS.
[S. R. DAs, AcTING C. J., VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS, JAFER IMAM and CttANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.]
Evacuee
Pt'Dperty-Custodian-General-Revisional
powersAdministration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950), ss.
27, 58(3)-Transaction before the passing of the Act-Application for
confirmation-East Punjab Evacttees'
(Administration of Property)
Act, 1947 (East Punjab Act XIV of 1947), ss. 5-A, 5-B-Order of
confirmation .afte1· passing of Act XXXI of 1950-Revision-Validity-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), s. 6-Applicability.
The appellant, a displaced person from Lahore, was the owner
o( a house there and on the 10th of October, 1947, she arranged to
have it exchanged with certain lands in a village in the State of
Delhi, belonging to M, an evacuee. On the 23rd of February, 1948,
she made an application to the Additional Custodian
of Evacuee
Property (Rural), Delhi, for
confirmation of the transaction of ex1955
Sadhll Ram
v.
The CustodianGentral of Evacuee
Property
JagannadhadaJ ].
1955
Octob<r 28.