Holding

Sub‑section (2A) of section 8 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, with retrospective effect, validates the vesting of the properties as evacuee property and bars civil courts from questioning the Custodian’s orders, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

Summary

The plaintiffs, heirs of Haji Umar Kasam, claimed that his properties in Junagadh were not evacuee property and that the Custodian’s taking over of them was illegal. The Union of India argued that the properties had become evacuee property under the Junagadh Act and subsequent statutes, and that sections 28 and 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act barred the civil court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Supreme Court examined the effect of sub‑section (2A) of section 8 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which retrospectively validates any vesting of property as evacuee property even if the earlier law was defective. The Court held that the properties were indeed evacuee property and that the Custodian’s orders, including the refusal to restore the property, were valid and could not be challenged in a civil suit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the bar on civil court jurisdiction and the validity of the Custodian’s actions.

Issues considered

Whether sub‑section (2A) of section 8 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, validates the vesting of property as evacuee property despite any defect in the repealed law.
Whether the suit properties are deemed evacuee property under the Act and the preceding statutes.
Whether sections 28 and 46 of the Act bar the civil court’s jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the Custodian’s orders.
Whether the order dated 1 March 1949 restoring the properties to Haji Umar Kasam was valid and enforceable.
Effect of the notification under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 on the title of the properties.

Legislation cited

Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950s. 16, s. 2, s. 28, s. 46, s. 58, s. 8(2), s. 8(2A)
Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1960s. 8(2A)
Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (Central Ordinance)s. 55, s. 8(2)
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954s. 12
Junagadh State Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act XII, 1948s. 16, s. 2(b), s. 2(c), s. 4, s. 7, s. 8
Saurashtra Ordinance (1949)s. 4, s. 5

Subjects

evacuee propertyAdministration of Evacuee Property Actretrospective validationsection 8(2A)jurisdiction barredcivil court jurisdictionproperty restorationDisplaced Persons Act

Judgment

249
A
HAJJ SIDDIK HAJI UMAR & OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA
B
Jam1ary 18, 1983

(A. P. SEN, B.S. VBNKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.J
Admi•istratlon of Evacuee Property Act, 1950-Sub·•· (2A) of•· 8 and
ss. 28 and 46-Property taken over as evacuee property under any repealed law- c
Sub-s. (2A) ;of" 8 operates even If there Is no defect in pr1viou1 law and cures
all defects I• taking over-81. 28 and 46 bar jurisdiction of civil court to lnterf1re
in any matter dttermined by Custodian General or Custodian.

Sub s. (2A) of s. 8 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 19SO
states that all property which under •Ill' law repealed by the Act purports to
have vested as evacuee property in any person exercising the powers of D
Custodian in any State shall, notwithstatiding any defect in, or the invalidity of
such law or any judgment. decree or order of any Court be deemed for all
purposes to have validly vested in that person, as if the provisions of such law
bad been enacted by-Parliament and such property shall, on the commencement
of the Act, be deemed to have been evacuee· property declared as such within
the meaning of the Act and accordingly, any order made or other action taken
by !he Custodian or, any other authority in relation to Such property shall be E
deemed to have been validly and lawfully made or taken.

The properties whicJt were the subject matter of the suit from which
this appeal arose were situate in the erstwhile State of Junagadh and belonged
to one Haii Umar Kasam who had sailed from Bombay on October 8, 1947 on
a pilgrimage to Mecca. On May 1, 1948 a notice in respect of these properties
was issued under tho Junagadh State Evacuo• (Administration of Property) Act
XII of 1948 but it was withdrawn on May 31, 1948 on receipt of a reply from
F
bis son that he had not gone away from Junagadh out of fear of civjl distur..
bances but in fact had gone on Haj and was expected to return shortly. Since
he did not return till September, 1948 the Custodian took possession of the suit
·properties. Thereafter the territory of Junagadh became -intearated with. the
United States of Saurashtra and the Junagadh Act was repealed by a Saurashtra
-Ordinance which in turn was repealed by a Central Ordinance. The Administra·
tion of Evacuee Property Act, 19SO replaced the Central Ordinance.
G

An orde.r declaring Haji Umar Kasam as an evacuee was issued on May
20, 1949 by!tho Custodian purporting to act under tho Junagadh Act. Tho
appeal filed against this order before the District Judge, Junagadh was transferred
by him "to the High Court of Saurashtra which in tum sent the same to the H
CostodiaQ qf i;aurashtra for disposal. H•ii Umar Kasam returned to lndi~
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] 2 s.c.R.
. '
during the pondency of that appeal aJld·filed a petition under the provisions of
the Central Ordinance-which had come into force by then-before the
Custodian General requesting him to transfer the appeal to his file for disposal.
Before this petition could be heard, the appeal was dismissed by the Custodian
of Saurashtra on June 21 1950. A revision filed against this order was dismissed
on August 9, 1950 by the Custodian G:neral along with the petition for transfer
of the appeal which had been filed earlier, Haji Umar Kasam's application under
B s. 16 of the Central Ordinance for restoration of his property was also turned
down when the Central Government deciioed to grant the certificate contempla-
ted under the proviso to sllb-s. (I) thereof on the ground that, contrary to his
claim that he had gone to Mecca and stayed there, there was evidence suggest-
ing that he must have been in Karachi for a major part of the period during
which he was away from India. A notification was also issued in respect of the
suit properties under s. 12 of the J)isplaced Persons (ComPensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

The heirs and legal representati1,es of Haji Umar K.asam filed the suit
contending that he was not an evacuee; pthat the taking over of possession of the
properties after the withdrawal of the: notice on May 31; 1948 without issuing
further notice was illegal; that an order directing restoration of the properties to
D Haji Umar Kasam had been passed o•n March 1, 1949 and therefore the order
of May 20~ J949 declaring him an evaLcuee · without issuing notice or holding an
inquiry was illegal; and that the orders passed by the Custodian and the
Custodian Gec..,,ral on June 2, 1950 and August 9, 1950 respectively as well as
the refusal by the Government of India to grant t.he certificate under s. 16 were
all contrary to law,

The Union of India which contested the suit did not deny that an order
E was made on March 1, 1949 as stated above but pleaded that the order dated
May 20, 1949 had been passed in acr.ordance with Jaw after making necessary
inquiry at which the plaintiffs had be:en given sufficient opportunity to prove
that Haji Umar Kasam was not an evacuee. It .Placed reliance on the order
passed on the application made under s. 16 and the notification issued uilder
s. 12 of tbe Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and
on s. 46 which barred the jurisdiction of the civil ·court to decide the questions
F raised in the suit.

The trial court dismissed the suit aad the appeal against its dismissal was
rejected by the High Court. On the question relating to the existence of the
order of March 1, 1949 directing the restoration of properties of Haji Umar
Kksam, while the trial court was of the: view that tbere was no such order, the
High Court held that such an order had been made.
G
Dismissing the appeal,

HELD : Sub-s. (2A) of s. 8 operates even if there is no defect in any pre-
vious law under which action is taken and cures all defects, if any, in the taking
over of the properties as evacuee properties. The words "notwithstatiding any
H defect io or !he i0 validiry of, such law or any judgment, decree 9r order of any
/

HAJJ SIDDIK V. UNION 2Sl
Court" found in this sub-~ection do not cut down the operation or the elm A
words of the sub-section which validate the vesting of any property which
purports to have vested as evacuee property even if there was any irregularity in
the. procedure. The non-obstante clause referred to above is not intended to
whittle down the operation of sub-s. (2A) of s. 8. It is introduced only orit o(
abundant caution. In the context in which thiS sub-section appears it is not
correct to hold that it would operate Only where there is any defect in or invali-
dity of any previous law or where there is any judgment, decree or order of any 8
court to the contrary. [267 A·B]

The Dominion of India & Anr. v. Shrinbai A. Irani &'Anr.• [195S] 1 S.C.R.
296; Azeemunnisa & 6rs. v. The _Deputy Custodian Evacuee Propertie1, District
Dtorio & Ors., [1961] 2 S.C.R. 91 and M/s. Hail Esmai/ Noor Mohammtd &
Co. & Ors. v. The Competent Officer, Lucknow & Ors, [1967] 3 S.C.R. 134,

'
referred to. c
Ahmedbhai Ahdulkadar & Ors. v. The Custodia.,, of Evacuee Property and
Regional Settletnent Commissioner, Bombay & Ors., A.LR. 1971Gujarat181,
approved.

Jo the instant case it cannot be disputed that the suit properties bad been D
taken over under the Junagadb Act as evacuee properties in September. 1948
and had continu.e_d to be in the possession of the Custodian till the Act was
passed and therefore it is not possible to hold that they were not evacuee
properties. [268 H, 269 A]

(ii) Whereas under s. 7 of the Act ao enquiry had to precede the declara-
tion that a property was an evacuee property, under the Junagadh Act no such
enquiry was ·contemplated. The Custodian was required by s.' 7 of that Act
to take possession of any property which bad been Ieft in Junagadh by ao
evacuee. The suit properties had been taken over as evacuee properties in
September, 1948 because Haji Umar Kasam had not returned to Junagadh for
over one }ear. Such taking over was an administrative act. By reason of the
combined effect of ss. 4 aud 16 (IJ of the Junagadb. Act the properties continued
to be vested in the Custodian. The order dated March 1, 1949 under which it F
is· claimed that the properties were ordered to be returned bas not been produ~d.
Even if such an order was there unless it is shown that such an order had been
passed by the State Government aod published in the Official Gazette, the suit
properties would not cease to be evacuee ·properties. By virtue of s. 5 of the
SauraShtra Ordinance the,Y became vested in the Custodian of Saurasht ra and
by ·vir1ue of s. 8 (2) of tbe Central Orrlinance they became vested in the
Custodian appointed under that Ordinance. All properties vested under the G
Central Ordinance became evacuee property in the hands of the Custodian
appointed under the Act by virtue of sub·ss. (2) and (21\) of s. 8. Any doubt
that existed about the vesting of the properties in the Custodian under the Act
as evacuee property was removed by enacting sub·s. (2A) of s. 8 with retrospec-
tive effect. [26 lE-H, 262 1\-E, 266 B·Fl
Jf
(iii) It is only after the Central Ordinance came into force that Haji Umar
~asam preferred bis petition for restoration of bis pro\'"rties lll,lder s. 16 (I) of
252 SUPREME COUBT REPORTS [1983) 2 s.c.li.

A · that Ordinance, and a1so applied for a certificate as per proviso to that suh�section
to the Government of India. Again it is only after the -Act came into force
replacing the Central Ordinance that the Custodian General disposed of the
.
J)etition for_ transfer of the appeal pending before the Custodian of Saurashtra
and the revi$ion petition filed against his order dated June 2, 1950. The effect
of these proceedings have to be considered in the light of the provisions of thi
Act. .[263 Q.H, 264 A-BJ
B
(iv} Section 28 bars the jurhdictiJn oi any C<JLHt to entertain any suit or
proce edii:ig with respect to any order pa-;sed by the authorities mentioned
.
therein. Section -46 which i! worded very widely bar3 the jurisdiction of civil or
revenue courts in regard to matters mentioned th�rdn. No such court can
entertain any suit or proc�eding in which .th� qu�o;tion wheth�r ·any property
is or is not evacuee pioperty arises or in which the legality of any acti on taken
c by the Custodian General or the C·Jstodian under 'the Act is questioned. Any
illatter which the Cuo;.todian General or the Custodian is empowered to. deter
mine by or under the Act is also outside the jurisdiction of any -such court. In
view of these provis i oni it was not open to the civil court to decide whether the
suit properties were evacuee properties or not. It was also not open to it to
decide the correctness of the order of the Custodian General dated August
9, 1950 declining to interfere with the order of the Custodian dated June 2, 1950.
D The question whether a certificate should have been issued by the Central
Government also was by implication barred as it wa<i the Custodian who had to
restore the pr.operty lfter ho!Jing an iaquiry into the title of the evacuee when
an application was made to him along with a certificate i�sued .bY the Central
GoV-ernment and a certificate of that nature by itself would be of no 1.1se.
Neither Haji Umar Ka.sam, nor after his death, his heirs and legal representa�
tives, q uestioned the<;e orders before the I-Iiii;h Court under Art. 226 or before
E this Court ,under Art. 32 or Art. 136. Thus they be�ame final and were beyond
thejurisdictioa ol tbo civil court. ]269:C-H, 27 0 A]

Custodiar1 of Evacuee Pr·uJerty, Pu.ilj'l'i& Ors. v. /J[ran Beguw, [1967] 3
S.C.R. 736, referred to.

F Fazalbhoy .Currimbhoy etc. v. Official Trustee of Maharashtra & Ors., (1979]
2 S.C.R. 699 and Dr. Ra/endra Prakash s1,,rm2 v. Gyin Chonira & Ors., ti �80)
3 S.C R 207, distinguished.
. .

(v) On the publicrition of the. notifie1tiJn �nd�r s. I! .Jf tle Di�;>{:ic�,1
the right, title or interest
Pers ons (COmpea)ation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
in the suit propertie ' becam� cx:iiaguished and the� vest;:d
of Haji Umar K1sa1n
G absolutely i.Q. the Central Government free fr0rn all encumbran
ces by virtue of

D, )2 (2) oftbat Act. (270
D-E]

Basant Ram v. Union of India, [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 733, referred to.,

H 2279 of
CIVIL APPELLATE JIJ�ISDl!;;flON : Civil Appeal No.
1970.
•
HA11 SIDDJK v. UNION ( Vetikataramiah, J.) 253

From the Judgment and Decree dated the 28th/29th July, A
1970 of the Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No. 438 ·of
1962. .
:
T. U. Mehta and R.P. Kapoor for the Appellant.

P.A. Francis, S.N. Chaudhary and R.N. Poddar for the 8
Respondent. ·

R.N. Sachthey for the Intervener.

-,--.; R.H. Dhebar for the Intervener.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal by certificate is filed against
the judgment and decree dated July 29, 1970 passed° by the High
Court of Gujarat in First Appeal No. 438 of 1962 affirming th¥
judgment and decree dated August 27, 1962 passed in Special Civil D
Suit No. 254 of 1959 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Junagadh dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of
the properties mentioned in Schedule-I attached to the plaint and
for damages and other reliefs against the Union of India.

The properties ·in question which are situated · in the area B
~ which formed part of the former princely State of Junagadh
originally belonged to one Haji Umar Kasam, a resident of
Junagadh who died on May 22, 1956. The plaintiffs are his heirs
and legal representatives.
- --.....
The Nawab of Junagadh accepted the accession of his State
to Pakistan on August 13, 1947. On September 23, 1947 Haji
Umar Kasam left Junagadh for Haj and sailed from Boinbay by
"S.S. Akbar" on October 8, 1947. On October 24, 1947, the
Nawab of Junagadh fled to Pakistan. The State of Junagadh was
taken over by its people and a Council of Administration was set
up to administer it. Thereafter the State acceded to India. On
G
February 13, 1948 Junagadh State Evacuee (Administration of
•
Property) Act XII of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Junagadh
... Act') was enacted. It provided for the administration of the
properties belonging to evacuees. Under that Act the expression H
'evacuee' was defined as a person ordinarily resident in or owning
·property or carrying on business in any village or town within the.

1111
I

254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 2 s.c.R.

Junagadh State who had on account of civil disturbances or the
fear of such disturbances left that village or town and did not
personally occupy or supervise his property or business. All
property in which an evacuee had any right or interest other than
any moveable property in his immediate physical possession which
was called 'evacuee property' situated within the Junagadh State
B came to be vested in the Custodian appointed for the purpose of
that Act and was directed to continue to be so vested until the
Junagadh State Government by notification otherwise directed.
There were detailed provisions in that Act relating to the manag-
ment of evacuee properties. Section 16 (1) of that Act however
provided that on being satisfied that evacuees had returned or were
c returning to the Junagadh State, the Junagadh State Government
might by notification in the State Gazette authorise return of tbe ' '
property to the owners in accordance with the aforesaid section 16.
Any person claiming to be entitled to any such property c.ould
apply in writing to the. Custodian who had after giving public notice
to hold a summary enquiry into the claim and to pass a formal
D order declaring the person to whom the possession of the property
might be delivered. A notice was issued by the Assistant-Custodian
who also exercised certain specified powers of the Custodian under
the Junagadb Act on May 1, 1948 in respect of the properties of
Haji Umar Kasam as be had not returned to Junagadb and was
away for more than · six months. On May 5, 1948 his son Haji
E Mohamed Siddik Haji Umar sent a reply to that notice stating that
his rather Haji Umar Kasatn had not gone away from Junagadh
out of fear of Civil disturbances; that he bad gone on 'Haj'; that
all his heirs were living in Junagadh and that he Was returning
shortly and therefore his properties might not be treated as evacuee
properties. No specific reason was, however, given in the said reply
F , for the long delay in the return of Haji Kasam. On receipt of bis
reply that notice was withdrawn on May 31, 1948. Since Haji
Umar Kasam had not returned till September, 1948 the possession
of the suit properties was taken by the Custodian between
September 23, 1948 and October I, 1948 as evacuee properties. By
· the Saurashtra Ordinance III of 1949, the territory of the Junagadh
G
State was integrated with the United States of Saurashtra. It is
• alleged.that by an order dated March 1, 1949 Haji Umar Kasam
was declared to be a non-evacuee and the foe factory, one of the
suit properties, was ordered to be returned to hi, sons. This fact is
r
H disputed by the Union of India although the High Court of
Gujarat has held that there was such an order. The possession of

•
HAJI SIDDIK v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J.) 2ss

the ice factory was not, however, returned. It continued to be with
the Custodian. But again on May 20, 1949, the Custodian purport-
ing to exercise his power under the Junagadh Act treated Haji
Umar Kasam as an evacuee and directed that his ice factory should
be taken possession of as an evacuee property. The ice factory
was leased out by the State Government in favour of a refugee
called Suraji Krishan Nandlal Chowdhary in May, 1949. Since B
Haji Umar Kasam had not yet returned to India, his sons filed an
appeal in July, 1949 before the District Judge, Junagadh against
the order deClaring him as an evacuee. On August 4, 1949 the
Saurashtra Ordinance .XLIII of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Saurashtra Ordinance') was passed repealing the Junagadh Act and
under that Ordinance the properties vested in the Custodian under .
G
the Junagadh Act came to be vested in the Custodian or the United
States of Saurashtra. This Ordinance was repealed and replaced· by
the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance No. XXVII of
1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Central. Ordinance') which applied
also to all the acceding States except Cooch-Behar, Manipur and D
Tripura with effect from October 18, 1949. The Central Ordinance
r was repealed and replaced by the Administration of Evacuee
Property Act, 1950 (Act XXXI of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') which came into force on April 17, 1950. Haji Umar
Kasam returned to India on December 23, 1949 after the Central
.. ' Ordinance had come into force.

Now reverting to the appeal· preferred by the sons of Haji
Kasam filed in July, 1949 before the District Judge, Junagadh it is
seen that the said appeal was transferred by the District Judge to
the High Court of Saurashtra State without deciding it. The
High Court in its turn as per its order dated March 22, 1950
F
.' sent the appeal to the Custodian of Evacuee Property of Saurashtra
on · a joint submission made by the counsel appearing for the
appellants as well as the counsel for the Cnstodian with which the
High Court agreed. When the said appeal was pending before the
Custodian, a petition purporting to be under sub-section (2) of G
section 6 and section 27 of the Central Ordinance was presented by
Haji Umar Kasam himself to the Custodian General of Evacuee
Pro;ierty requesting him to withdraw the appeal to his file and to
dispose it of. That petition dated April 17, 1950 was actually
presented on April 19, 1950. Before the above. petiti?n .could be H
heard by the Custodian General; the Custodian d1sm1ssed the
appeal on June 2, 1~50 on two grounds viz. (i) that the appeal had
I

256 SUPREME COURT REPOR11

been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation and (ii) that
Haji Umar Kasam having left the Junagadh State limits after
August 15, J94 7 and having not returned !>y the ti me the order :>--
under appe&I was passed i.e. May 20, 1949 he had been rightly
treated as an evacuee.

n Against the order ,passed by th1i Custodian on the appeal on
June 2, 1950 a revision petition was filed before the Custodian
General under section 27 of the Act. The Custodian General
took up for consideration the petition filed on April 19, 1950
requesting him to withdraw the appeal tl\en pending before.the
Custodian and the revision petition filed against the order passed
c in appeal by the Custodian together. After hearing the counsel
for Haji U mar Kasarn the Custodian General disposed them of by ' <

his ocder dated August 9, 1950. Though he agreed with the
submission made on behalf of Haji Umar Kasam that the appeal
tiled agamst the order passed by the Custodian, Junagadh on
May 20, 1949 could not be dispo·sed of by the Custodian of
D Saurashtra State, who was of the same rank as the Custodian wh.o
had passed the order under· appeal, he found it difficult to go
behind the order of the High Court of Saurashtra which had
transferred the appeal to the Custodian of Saurashtra by its order
agreeing with the joint submission made by the cou,nsel for the
appellants therein and the counsel for the Custodian. That
E
Judicial order according to the Custodian General, having
become final could not be interfered with by him. He also
felt that it was not possible for him to set aside the order of
May 20, 1949 passed by the Custodian, Junagadh as the office of
the Custodian General was not in existence then_, even if ho could
F interfere with the appellate order passed by the Custodian of
Saurashtra holding that the appeal was barred by time. For these
and other reasons, .the Custodian General dismissed both the r
petition dated April 19, 1950 and the revision petition by his order
dated August 9, 1950. That order was allowed to become final.

Haji Umar Kasam also made an application in January, 1950
G
lo the Custodian for restoration of his property under section 16 of
the Central Ordinance. That. Section read as :

"J 6. Restoration of Property: (I) the Custodian may,
on application made to him in this behalf in writing by an
.n evacuee or any person claiming to be an heir of an evacuee,
rm ore subject to such terms and conditions as he may think
llAJI SIDDIK v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J.) 251

fit to impose, the evacuee property to which the evacuee or A
other person would have been entitled if this Ordinance
were not in force :

Provided that the applicant produces in support of his
application a certificate from the Central Government or
from any person authorised by it in this behalf, to the effect B
. that the evacuee p10perty may be so restored if the applicant
is otherwise entitled thereto.

(2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (t),
the Custodian shall cause public notice thereof to be given
G
' in the prescribed manner, and, after holding a summary
inquiry into the claim in such mannec as may be pr.escribed
may-

(a) make a formal order declaring that-the ·property
shall be restored to the applicant : or D
(b) reject the application; or
(c) refer the applicant to a civil court for the deter·
mination of his claim and title to the property :

Provided that no order for restoration shall be made ·!
under this section, unless provision has been made in the
prescribed manner for the recovery of any amount due to
_,...... '·
the Custodian in respect of the property or the
management thereof. ·

1 (3) Upon the restoration of the property to the
evacuee or to the heir, as the case may be, the Custodian
F
shall stand absoJVed of all responsibilities in respect of the
property so restored, but such restoration shall not
prejudice the rights, if any, in respect of the property
which any other person may be entitled to enforce against
G
the person to whom the property has been so restored :

Provided that every lease granted in respect of the
property or on behalf of the Custodian shall have effect
against the person to whom restoration is made until such
H
lease is determined by lapse of time or by operation of
law." (Underlining by us)
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 98Jj 2 S.C.R

A [Note: Section 16(1) of the Act which replaced the
Central Ordinance on April I 7, I 950 was in the same terms.]

On receipt of that application filed by Haji Umar Kasam,
the Custodian informed him on February 25, 1950 that in order to
proceed with it, it was necessary that he should produce a certificate
fi of the Central Government as contemplated under the proviso to
section 16(1)· set out above. Accordingly be applied to the Custo-
dian General for such a certificate on March 19, 1950. That
application was sent to the Custodian of Saurashtra for enquiry
and report. The Custodian submitted his final report on June 30,
1953. In bis application Haji Umar Kasam had claimed that he
c had left India for the purpose of Haj and had gone to Mecca where
he fell ill necessitating a prolonged stay tbere. He also claimed
that be had stayed all along there from September 1947 to
December 1949 when he returned to India. In support of his case
he produced certificate dated December 3, 1949 issued by the
D Indian Consul at Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) saying that he had been
unavoidably detained there and could not be repatriated earlier.
On enquiry the Custodian found that apart from the other
circumstances, such as earlier statements made by the sons of Haji
Umar Kasam, certain remittances sent from the Bank of India,
Junagadh Branch to him which were encashed at Karachi suggested
E that Haji Umar Kasam must have been in Katachi for a major part
of the period during which he was' away from India.

The following was the list of remittances :
"THE BANK OF JNDIA JUNAGADH BRANCH
F Amount remitted by various 'individuals and firms to parties
residing in Karachi (Pakistan) through this branch. r '
Sr. Date of Name of remitter Aniount Name of Receiver
No. remittance remitted in Pakistan
2 3 4 5
G 24 3-11-47 Haji Ibrahim Ayub 12,000 Haji Umar Kasam
1
70 22-11.47 Haji Ibra 1im Ayub 4,500 Haji Umar Kasam
167 27-11-47 Haji Ibrahim Ayub 3,500 Haji ·Umar Kasam
~ ~
488 23-1-48 Baramain H. Miao 1,000 Haji Umar Kasam
573 10-,4-48 Alibhai Haji Hakimbhai 2,000 Haji Umar Kasam
592 1-5-48 Haji A. Haji Umar 5,000 Haji Umar Kasam
H 617 7-6-48 Haji A. Haji Umar 5,000 Haji Umar Kasam
620 9-6-48 Abdreman Kasam 1,800 Umar Kasam"
HAJI SIDDIK 1'· UNION (Venkataramiah, J. ) . 259

The Custodian reported that the evidence before him revealed A
that Haji Umar Kasam had received the payments through the
above bank remittances at Karachi and that the case that Haji
Umar Kasam had stayed in Mecca throughout was not believable.
After considering the entire matter before it and the report referred
to above the Government of India declined to grant a certificate
referred to in the proviso to section 16 (I) of the Act as it stood B
then and communicated its decision to Haji Umar Kasam through
the Custodian, Saurashtra on July 3, 1954. This decision again was
not questioned h;i any court. A notification under section 12 of the
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilftation) Act, 1954
was issued in respect of the properties in question on June 8, 1955.
No further effective action appears to have been taken by Haji
c
. ' Umar Kasam against this notification except writing letters to the
ministers of the Government of India, some of which are produced
before this Court by way of answer to a question put by the Court
as to wheth:r any such action was taken before the institution of
the suit. D
r As mentioned earlier Haji Umar Kasam died on May 22, 1956.
Thereafter his heirs and legal representatives filed the suit out of
which this appeal arises in the year 1959 after issuing the required
notice dated January 2, 1959 under section 80 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. In that notice, it was stated that the Special Custodian E
Officer had taken . possession of the suit properties between
September 23, 1948 and October 1, 1948 illegally acting in abuse of
his power, The plaintiffs demanded the return of the suit properties
and also damages for illegal possession from October 1, 1948 to
January 1, 1959,
F
The main contention of the plaintiffs in the suit is set out in
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint. It is pleaded therein that Haji
Umar Kasam was not an evacuee ; that the first notice issued by the
Custodian Officer was withdrawn on May 31, 1948 ; that again in
G
September, 1948 the Special Custodian Officer had taken possession
of the ice factory belonging to Haji Umar Kasam without issuing
any notice to him and later. on a· representation made by the plain-
tiffs, the Special Custodian Officer passed an order on March 1, 1949
directing the restoration of'the properties of Haji Umar Kasam to
· him and that again on May 20, 1949 the Custodian of Evacuee H
Property, Junagadh had made a declaration that Haji Umar Kasam
was an evai;u!le ~n\I l)irei:tec;I t.m- taking over of his properties. It is

..
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (!983) 2 S.C.R.

A contended that the order of May 20, 1949 which was passed without
issuing notice and without holding an enquiry after the order of
March 1, 1949 was illegal and in excess of jurisdiction. In paragraphs
6 and 7 of the plaint, it was alleged that the order passed by the
Custodian on June 2, 1950 wa·; b1d in law and the rejection of the
petition by the Custodian General on August 9, 1950 and the
B refusal by the Government of India to grant the certificate under
section J6 of the Act were again contrary to law. The suit was filed
by the heirs and legal represe1Hatives ·of Haji U mar Kasam on the
above basis for possession ol' the twelve properties mentioned in
Schedule-I attached to the plaint which originally belonged to him.
The defendant, Union of India, which contested the suit while not
c denying that an order was made on March I, 1949 as stated above,
inter a/ia pleaded that the order dated May 20, 1949 had been
passed in accordance with law after making necessary inquiry at
which the plaintiffs had been given sufficient opportunity to prove
that Haji Umar Kasam was not an evacuee. Reliance was also
placed by the Union of India on the orders passed on the applica-
D
tion made under section 16 of the Act, the notification issued under
section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita-
tion) Act, 1954 and· section 46 of the Act which barred the juris-
diction of the civil court to decide the questions ra.ised in the suit.
•'

E On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed as many as
fifteen issues and at the conclusion "of the trial recorded its findings
on them. Ultimately the suit wascdismissed. The High Court in
appeal discussed the effect of some of the provisions of law appli-
cable to the case ~and dismissed the appeal. It did not, however, .-"...
deal with all the issues. It may be noted that on the·questi~n relating
F to the existence of the order of March 1, 1949 while the trial court
was ol the view that there was no such order, the High Court held
that such an order had been made.

In order to deal with the contentions of the parties before us
it is necessary to deal with the effect of the orders passed from time
G to time under the various provisions of .!law applicable to the case.
These orders can be clasified into two groups viz. those passed prior
to the corning into force of the Central Ordinance i.e. !prior to
October 18, 1949 and those passed after the Central Ordinance >- ,..
came into force.
H
We shall first deal with the orders passed prior to the coming
Jn to force of the <;e 0tr>1I: Ordinance. It is now necessary to con side(
HAJJ SIDDIK v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J.) 261

the provisions of the Junagadh Act which came into force on A
February 13, 1948. It did not provide for any enquiry before treat-
ing any property as evacuee property. Section 2 (b) of the Junagadh
Act defined the term 'evacuee' and section 2 (c) defined the term
'evacuee property' as all property in which an evacuee had any right
or interest. The object of the Junagadb Act was to make provision
for the preservation and the management of evacuee properties.
B
Section 4 of that Act provided that an evacue~ property situated.
within the Junagadh State would vest in the Custodian for the
purpose of that Act and would continue to be so vested until the
Junagadh State Government by notification otherwise directed.
Section 7 of that Act required the Custodian to take possession of
all evacuee properties. Section 8 of that Act provided for an enquiry
c
by the Custodian into the claims of any person in respect of property
taken possession of by him as evacuee property. If the Custodian
was satisfied that the claimant had any right to it, he had to give
effect to it. But if he rejected the claim, the aggrieved party could
file an appeal before t'.1e High Court. Section 16 (I) of that Act D
empowered the Junagadb State· Government by notification in the
State Gazette io authorise the return of any evacuee property on
being satisfied that the concerned evacuee bad re'.urned or was
returning to the. State of J1magadh after holding an enquiry into the
title of'such evacuee to the property .in question. It is thus clear
that the pattern of the provisions of the Junagadh Act was different E
from the provisions of the Act. Whereas under section 7 of the Act
M enquiry had to precede the declaration that a property was an
evacuee property under the Junagadh Act no such ·enquiry was
contemplated. But the provisions of the Junagadh Act did not:iallow
any unjust results to follow. The Custodian was required to take
possession of any property which had been left in Junagad h by an F
.evacuee and to preserve and manage it until the evacuee returned
and on his return the possession was to be restored to him.
There was no violation of any principles of natural justice
as such involved in the process. Oa )he other hand it provided for
a machinery for preventiqg the properties of evacuees being occu•
G
pied by trespassers and for their preservation.JTh< suit properties
had been admittedly taken over by the Custodian as evacuee proper-
ties in September, 1948 because Haji Umar Kasam had not returned
to Junagadh for over one year. Such taking over was an administra·
tive act. The properties taken over as evacuee properties under the H
JunagadhAct by reason of the combined effect of section 4 and
section 16 (1) thereof continued to · be vested in the Custodian until
262 SUPREME .COURT REP<lRTS [1983) 2 S.C.R.

the Junagadh State Govero,.i1ent by notification published in the
Official Gazette authorised their restoration to the owner. No Gazette
notification authorising such restoration is produced before the
Court. The order dated March I, 1949 under which it is claimed
1ha t the properties were mdered to be returned is also not produced.
Even if such an ordef was ·!here unless it is shown that such an
'8 order bad been passed by the State Government and published in
the Official Gazette, the evacuee properties taken over under the
Junagadh Act would not cease to be evacuee properties. The order
dated May 20, 1949 did not, therefore, in any way alter the situation.
It only reiterated the true character of the properties namely that
the properties in question were evacuee properties which had been
taken over in exercise of the powers under the Junagadh Act. It is
admitted by Haji Ahm~d Haji Umar, plaintiff No. 2 in his deposi-
tion that they were in tl1e possession of the Custodian when the
Saurasbtra Ordinance came into force on August 4, 1949. Section 4
of that ordinance provided that the provisions contained in that
D Ordinance and the rules and orders made thereunder would have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in
)
any other law for the time being in force in the United States of
Saurashtra of which Junagadh was a part. Section 5 of that Ordi·
nance provided for the vesting of all evacuee properties situated in
the United States of Saurashtra in · the Custodian under the
E Ordinance. Thus the properties vested in the Custodian of Junagadh
came to be vested in the C"stodian of the United States of Saura·
sttra. The properties of Haji Umar Kasain also accordingly became
vested in the Custodian of the United States of Saurashtra. --"

The Central Ordinance came into force on October 18, 1949
F and it was applicable to the State of Saurashtra also. Section 55 of
that Ordinance reads as follows ;

"55. Repeals imd saving. (I) The administration of
Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (XII of 1949), as in
force in the Chief Commissioners' Provinces and the
G Province of Madras and the United Provinces is hereby
rcpealeJ.

(2) If, immediately before the commencement of this
'·' Ordinance, there is .in force in any Province other than any
H
of the Provinces specified in sub-section (I) or in any
Acceding State any l~w 9orrespondin!l t() the Administra.
HAii SIDDIK v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J.) 263

t ion of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949,' that law also A
shall stand repealed.

(3) Notwithstanding the repeal by the Ordinance of the
Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance,,1949, or of
any corresponding law, anything done or any action taken
in the exercise of any power conferred by that Ordinance B
or law shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the
exercise of the powers conferred by this Ordinance, and
any penalty incurred or proceeding commenced under that
Ordinance or law shall be.deemed to be a penalty incurred
or proceeding commenced under this Ordinance as if this
Ordinance were in force on the day on which such thing G
was done, action taken, penalty incurred or proceeding
commenced."

Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 55 extracted above treated
all actions taken under the Saurashtra Ordinance which also came to
be repealed as actions taken under the Central Ordinance. By section 0
8 (2) of this Ordinance all evacuee properties vested in the Custodian
of the United States of Saurashtra became vested in the Custodian
appointed or deemed to be appointed under it. That sub.section
reads as .

"8. Vesting of evacuee property in the Custodian E
(I)

(2) Where immediately before the commencement of
this Ordinance any evacuee property in a Province had vest-
ed in any person exercising the powers of a Cusiodian under F
.any law repealed hereby, the evacuee property shall, on
the commencement of this Ordina.nce, be deemed to have
vested in the Custodian appointed o( deemed to have been
· appointed for the Province under this Ordinance, and
sball continue to so vest."
G
It is ouly after the Central Ordinance came into force that
Haji Umar Kasam who had returned to.India in o,cember, 1949
preferred his petitions for restoration of hi• properties under section
16 (I) of the Central Ordinance and also applied for a certificate as
per proviso to that sub s~ction to the Government of India. Again it H
is only after the Act came into force on April 17, 1950 replacing the
11bov~ Central Ordinance, the <;:ustodiaq General disposed of the
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1983] 2 s.c.R.

A pettion for transfer of the app,eal pending before the Custodian of
Saurasbtra and the revision petition filed against bis order dated
June 2, 1950. The effect of these proceedings' have to be considered
in the light of the prov1s1ons of the Act. The relevant
provisions of the Act which have to be considered are
section 8 (2), section 8 (2A), section !6 (I), section 28, section 46
B and section 58. It may he mentioned here that section 8 (2A) of the
Act was inserted into the Act by the Ad ministration of Evacuee
Property (Amendment) Act, 1960 (Act I of 1960) on February 27,
1960 but section 2 of that Act declared that that new sub-section
"shall be inserted and shall be deemed always to have been inserted"
'thus giving it restrospective effect from the date of the commence-
C ment of the Act. Section 16(1) of the Act was in the same terms as
section 16 (I) of the Central Ordinance extracted above. The other
relevant provisions· of the Act are given below :
>- x
"8. Vesting of evacue~ prop~rty in the Custo:lian.

(!) .............................................. ..
D 1
(2) Where immediately before the commencement of
this Act, any property in a State bad vested as evacuee
property in any person exercising the powers of Custodian
'
under any law repeakd hereby the property shall, on the
commencement of this Act, be deemed to be evacuee
E property declared as such within the meaning of this Act
and shall be deemed to have vested in the Custodian
appointed or deemed to have been appointed for the State
under this Act, and shall continue to so vest :

Provided that where at the commencement of this Act • '
F
there is pending befo:re the High Court, the Custodian or
any other authority for or in any State any proceeding
under section 8 or s1ection 30 of the Administration of
Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (XII of 1949), or uoder
G any other corresponding law repealed by the Administra-
tion of Evacuee Property Ordinance, _194'1 (XXVII of 1949),
then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or
any other law for the time being in force, such proceeding
shall be disposed of as if the definitions of 'evacuee property'
H and 'evacue~' contained in section 2. Qf this. Act had be-.
come applicable thereto.

-~
l!AJI S!DDIK v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J.) 265.

(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of the provi· A
sions contained in sub-section (2), all property which
under any law repealed hereby purports to have vested as
evacuee property in any person exercising the powers of
Custodian in any State shall, notwithstanding any defect in,
or the invalidity of, such law or any judgment, decree or
order of any court, be deemed for all purposes to have B
validly vested in that person, as if the provisions of such
law had been enacted by Parliament and such property
shall, on the commencement of this Act, be deemed to
have· been evacuee property declared as such within the
meaning . of this Act and accordingly, any order made or
other action taken by the Custodian or, any other autho·
c
' rity in relation to such property shall be deemed to have
been validly and lawfully made or taken.

28. Finality of orders under this Chapter-Save as
otherwise expressly provided in this Chapter, every order
made by the Custodian-General, District Judge, Custodian,
D
Additional Custodian, Authorised Deputy Custodian,
Deputy Custodian or Assistant Custodian shall be final
and shall not be called in question in any Court by way of
appeal or revision or in any . original suit, application or
execution proceeding.
E
46. Jurisdiction of civil courts . barred in certain
matters. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act;
no civil or revenue c~urt shall have "jurisdiction-

(a) to entertain or a,djudicate upon any question
whether any property or any right to or interest
in any property is or is not evacuee property ; or

(b) ................................................................. ..

(c) to question the legality of any action taken by the G
Custodian-General or the Custodian under this
Act; or

(d) in respect of any matter which the Custodian- H
General or the Custodian is empowered by or
under Ibis A~t to determine.
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 2 s.c.P..

58. Repeals and savings-(!) The Administration of
Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 and the Hyderabad
Administration of Evacuee Property Regulation are hereby
repealed.

(2) If, immediately before the commencement of this
B Act, there is in force in any State to which this Act extends
any law which corresponds to this Act and which is not
repealed by sub,section (!), that corresponding law shall
stand repealed.

0 (3) The repeal by this Act of the Administration of
Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, or the Hyderabad
Administration of Evacuee Property Regulation or of any
corresponding" law shall not affect the previous operation
of that Ordinance, Regulation pr corresponding law and
subject thereto, anything done or any action taken in the
D exercise of any power conferred by or under that Ordinance,
Regulation or corresponding law, shall be deemed to have
been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred
by or under this Act as if this Act were in force onjthe day
on which such thing was done or action was taken.''
'
E The effect of the provisions of the Act in so far as this case is
concerned may be summarised thus : All properties vested in the
Custodian under the Central Ordinance became evacuee property in
the hands of the Custodian appointed under the Act by virtue of .
sub-sections (2) and (2A) of section 8 of the Act. Any doubt tliat
existed about the vesting of the properties in the C:ustodian under
F
. the Act as evacuee propeny was removed by enacting section 8 (2A)
of the Act with retrospective effect. It says that all property which '
under any law repealed by the Act purports to have vested as
evacuee property .in auy person exercising the powers of Custodian
in any State shall, notwithstanding any defect in or the invalidity of
G such law or any judgment, decree, order of any court be deemed
for all purposes to have validly vested in that person as if the
provisions of that law had been enacted by Parliament and such
property shall on th~ commencement of the Act be deemed to have
been evacuee property declared as such within the meaning of the
Act and accordingly any order made or other action taken by the
Custodian or any other authority in relation to such property shall
be deemed to have been validly and lawfully made or taken. This
HAn SIDDIK v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J.) 267

prov1s1on operates even if there is no defect in any previous law A
under which action is taken and cures all defects, if any, in the
taking over of the properties as evacuee properties. The words
'notwithstanding any defect in or the invalidity of, such
law or .any Judgment, decree, or order of any court' found
in sub-section (2A) of section 8 of the Act do not cut down
the operation of the clear WGrds of that sub-~ection which B.
validate the vesting of any property which purports to ·have vested
·• as evacuee property even if there was any· irregularity in the
procedure. The non-obstante clause referred to above is not intended
to whittle down the operation of sub-section (2A) of section 8. It is
introduced only out of abundant caution. Omitting the non-obstante
•• clause, sub-section (2A) of section 8 would read : c·
"without prejudice to the generality of the provisions
contained in sub-section (2), all property which under any
law repealed purports to have vested as evacuee property
in any person exercising the powers of Custodian in any
State shall be deemed for all purposes to have validly D
r vested in that person .................................. "

•
l
In the context in which. sub-section (2A) of section 8 of the
Act appears, it is not, therefore, correct to hold that sub-section
(2A) would operate only where there is any defect in or invalidity
of any previous law or where there is any judgment, decree or order E
of any court to the contrary. ·This view receives support from the
rule of construction adopted by this .Court in The Dominion of India
&'.Anr. v. Shrinbai A. Irani & Anr.(1) The High Court of Gujarat also
has taken the same view of sub-section (2A) of section 8 of the Act
in Ahmedbhai Abdulkadar & Ors. v. The Custodian of Evacuee
Property and Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay & Ors.(') F
Dealing with this provision, this Court observed in Azimunissa, &
Ors. v. The Deputy Custodian Evacuee Properties, District Deoria &
Ors.(') at pages 103-104 thus:

"The word "purport" bas many shades of meaning. It
means fictitious, what[appears on the face of the instrument; G
the apparent and not the legal import and therefore any
act which purports to be done in . exercise of a power is io
be deemed to be done within that power notwithstanding

Ul [1955] 1 S.C.R. 206. H
(2) A.I.R. 1971 Guj. 181.
(3) [1961] 2 S.C.R. 91,
268 SUPMMB COURT ltEl>OltrS (1983] 2 S.C.R

A that the power is not exercisable ; Dicker v. Angerstein
[1876) 3 Cb. D.600, 603. Purporting is, therefore, indicative
of what appears on the face of it or is apparent even though
in law it may not be so. This means that at the time when
tbe Act purported to vest the property in dispute in the
Custodian even though the power was not exerchable,
B
s. 8{2A) by giving a retrospective effect to s. 8(2) of the Act
makes the vesting as if it was vesting under s. 8 (2) of the
Act and therefore the attack on the ground of invalidity
cannot be sustained ........................................ .
f ..
c The effect of s. 8 (2-A) is that what purported to have
vested under s. 8 (2) of Ordinance XXVII of 1949 and ••
which is to be deemed to be vested under s. 8 of the Act
which repealed that Ordinance, notwithstanding any invali-
dity in the original vesting or any decree or order of the
Court shall be deemed to be evacuee property validly
D vested in the Cu>todian and any order made by the Custo-
dian in relation to the property shall be deemed to be valid.
Thus retrospective effect is given to the Act to validate (I)
what purports to be vested -; (2) removes all defects or
.;
invalidity in the vesting or fictional vesting under s. 8 (2)
of Ordinance XXVII of 1949 or s. 8 (2) of the Act which
E repealed the Ordi'nance ; (3) makes the decrees and judg-
ments to the contrary of any court in regard to the vesting
ineffective ; (4) makes the property evacuee property by its
deeming effect ; and (5) validates all orders passed by the .4'._.
Custodian in regard to th•e property."

F Following the above decision, this Court in M/s. Haji Ismail
Noor Mohammad & Co. & Ors. v. The Competent Officer, Lucknow &
Ors. (1 ) held that where vesting of evacuee eroperties had taken
place under any corresponding law J?rior to the coming into force
of the Central Ordinance and of the Act, no question of making a
fresh declaration under section 7 (I) _of the Central Ordinance would
G arise. The Court further held that by reason of the deeming pro-
visions in sub-sections (2) and (2A) of section 8 of the Act. there
would be automatic vesting of such properties and such a vesting
could not be reopened after the Act came into force. In view of tlie
foregoing since it cannot be disputed that the suit properties had
ff
(t) (1967] 3 s.c.R. 134.
l

HAJI SIDDIK v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J.) 269

been taken over under the Junagadh Act as evacuee properties in A
September, 1948 and had continued to be in the po1session of the
Custodian till ·the Act was passed, it is not possible to hold that
they were not evacuee properties. We are of the view that they have
to be dealt with under the Act as evacuee properties which has duly
vested in the Custodian under the Act:
8
Section 16 of the Act provides for restoration of evacuee
property b)' the Central ,Government. Section 27 of the Act gives
power of revision to the. Custodian General either on his own
motion or on application made to him to call for the record of any
proceeding in order to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety C
of any order passed therein and to pass such order in relation thereto
as he thinks fit. Section 28 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of any
Court, of course other than the jurisdiction of the High
Court under . Article 226 of the Constitution and of the Supreme
Court under Article 32 and Article 136 of tire Constitutilln to
entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to any order passed by D
the authorities mentioned therein. Section 46 of the Act which is
worded very widely bars the jurisdiction of civil or revenue courts
in regard to matters mentioned therein. No such court can entertain
any suit or proce~ding in which the question whether any property
is or is not evacuee property arises or in which the legality of Any
action taken ·by the Custodian General or Custodian under the Act l!l
is questioned. Any matter which the Custodian General or the
Custodian is empowered to determine by or under the Act is also
outside the jurisdiction of any such Court. (see Custodian of Evacuee
Property Punjab & Ors. v. Jafran Begum(1)). In view of the above
provisions, it was not open to the civil court in this case to decide
whether the suit properties were evacuee prvperties or not. It was F
· also not open to it to decide the correctness of the order of the
Custodian General dated August 9, 1950 declining to interfere with
the order of the Custodian dated June 2, 1950. The question
>
whether a certificate should have been issued by the Central Govern-
ment also was by implication barred as it was the Custodian who
had to restore the property after holding an enquiry into the title G
of the evacuee when an application was made to him alongwith a
certificate i,ssued by the Central Government and a certificate of
that nature by itself would be of no use. Neither Haji Umar Kasam
nor after his death his heirs and legal representatives questioned 6.

(l) (1967] 3 S.C.R. 736

~:---·
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) 2 S.C.l.

A these orders before the High Court under Article 226 of the Consti-
tution or before the Supreme Court under Article 32 or under
Article 136 of the Constitution. They thus became final and were
beyond the jurisdiction of the civil court.

The decision of this Court in Fazalbhoy Currimbhoy etc. v.
8 Official Trustee of Maharashtra & Ors. etc.(') is of no assistance to
the plaintiff since in that case the Court was not concerned ·with any
question of law similar to the one whi.ch has arisen for consideration
in this case: So is the dedsion of this Court in Dr. Rajendra Pralcasii
Sharma v. Gyan Chandra & Ors.(') in which the evacuee concerned
migrated to Pakistan in the year 1967 after the insertion of section
c 7A of the Act.

There is a furth1~r hurdle in this case which bas arisen on
account of the publication of the notification under section 12 of
the Displaced Peroons (Compensation and Rehabilition) Act, 1954
in respect of the suit properties on June l, 1955. On the publication
D of such notification, the: right, title or interest of Haji Umar Kasam
in the suit properties became extinguished and they vested absolutely
in the Central Government free from all encumbrances by virtue of
section 12 (2) of the said Act. (see Basant Ram v. Union of bidia)( 3)
It is perhaps for this reason that the Central Government could not
make any order on the petitions filed by Haji Umar Kasam or bis
E heirs for restoration of the suit properties to them after the publi-
cation of the said notification.

In the circumstam:es, the High Court was right in dismissing
the appeal before it. ·

In the result the appeal fails and it is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. The plaintiffs are also exonerated from the
liability to pay the costs of the defendant in the trial court. We, •'
however, make it clear that the dismissal of this appeal does not
bar any other remedy available to the appellants in lal!.

G H.L.C. Appeal dismissed.

(I) [1979] 2 S.C.R. 69!1.
(2) [19SO] 3 S.C.R. 207.
(3) [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 733.