Summary
Respondent No. 1, who claimed to be the owner of the evacuee property in dispute, sold it to respondents 2 and 3 in 1970. In 1973, the Custodian, Evacuee Property, held that the sale was invalid since the property belonged to one Shah Mahmood, and after Shah Mahmood's migration to Pakistan during 1947 became evacuee property under the Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act 2006 of J & K State. The Custodian General, while dismissing the respondents' appeal against the Custodian's order, observed inter alia, that if any application had been made by the first respondent under s. 8 of the Act regarding the house, the Custodian may dispose of the same in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondents made an application under section 8 of the Act, and the same was rejected by the Custodian. The appeal against rejection was dismissed by the Custodian General.
The respondents filed second appeal before the High Court.While declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Custodian and the Custodian General, the High Court expressed concern over the abuse of section 8. The High Court observed that sections 8 and 14 of the Act had outlived their utility and directed that the authorities should not in future entertain any application made under section 8.Allowing the appeal filed by the State on the question of continued utility of section 8, the Court,HELD: (1) There was no need or necessity for the High Court to have gone into the question whether section 8 had outlived its utility and whether it continued to have rele- vance. [474B](2) Section 8 is closely inter-linked with section 6 of the Act which deals with the powers of a Custodian to notify a property as evacuee property under the Act, and as long as section 6 has relevancy and operative force and in as much as notifications could still be made under 471that section in appropriate cases, section 8 also will have to be retained and made use of by genuinely affected par- ties. [473G-H](3) A portion of the State is still in the hands of an alien Government and hence the possibility of a property becoming an evacuee property even now is very much there.[473H; 474A]See the full content of this document
Extract
State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. VS. Mahmood Ahmed & Ors.
PETITIONER: STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.Vs.RESPONDENT: MAHMOOD AHMED & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT13/04/1989BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J)BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J)KULDIP SINGH (J)CITATION: 1989 AIR 1450 1989 SCR (2) 470 1989 SCC Supl. (2) 319 JT 1989 (2) 151 1989 SCALE (1)994ACT: Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act 2006 of J & K State: Sections 6, 8, 9 and 14--Necessity for continuance of provisions-Emphasized.JUDGMENT: CIVI...
See the full content of this document