| Citation | 2023 INSC 638 |
| Date of Judgment | July 19, 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | CIVIL APPEAL NO.6168 OF 2016 |
| Appellant | STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. |
| Respondent | MEER BAKSH & ORS. |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S Oka, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol |
| Referred | Section2(f) in The Administration Of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The appellant-state of Himachal Pradesh claimed that the property held by Sultan Mahommad(predecessor in title of the respondent) fell under the section 2(f) in The Administration Of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and stated that Sultan was evacuee under section 2d of the same.
ISSUES
- The status of property is evacuee or not under the section 2(f) in The Administration Of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.
JUDGEMENT
- After having perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge, its find that learned Judge has held that it was categorically admitted by the State in its reply that the said Sultan Mohammad never left for Pakistan.
- Therefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that the property held by Sultan Mohammad could not have been declared as an evacuee property and hence, the action of declaring his property as an evacuee property was set aside.
- An appeal was carried by the appellants to the Division Bench of the High Court by the appellants. In paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment, the appeal Bench has noted thus: “4. Mr. V.S.Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, has frankly conceded that the predecessor in-interest of the writ petitioners, namely, Sultan Mohammad, was living in the State of Himachal Pradesh till the year 1983, when he died.”
- Notwithstanding the admitted position that this gentleman never left India and notwithstanding a fair concession based on facts made by the learned Additional Advocate General, the State has chosen to file appeal an against the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. This action of the State has to be deprecated.
- Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
- The court saddle the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh with the costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be payable to the Writ Petitioners before the High Court. The amount of costs shall be paid within two months from today.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Aman Maurya of Greater Noida College Of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
