Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SMT. MAQBOOL FATMA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DEPUTY CUSTODIAN GENERAL,EVACUEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/07/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (5)508
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
This Special Leave Petition arises against the judgment
and order of the High Court of Allahabad made on January 28,
1991 in C.W.P. No.4770 of 1976. The admitted position is
that one Ashfaq Hussain was an evacuee having migrated to
Pakistan. His property was vested in the Custodian under
U.P. Custodian of Evacuee Properties Act. Thereafter the
Central Act had taken over the operation of the evacuee
properties. The records disclose that the Assistant
Custodian, Farrukhabad at Kanpur had passed an order dated
June 22, 1961 in which it was held that the interest of
Ashfaq Hussain had been shown as evacuee interest and it was
directed that the order be communicated to all the major
shareholders for information. It was found that the order
was accordingly communicated to all the major shareholders.
Admittedly, a revision application came to be filed on
August 16, 1975, that is, practically after 14 years under
Section 27 of the Administration of the Evacuee Properties
Act, 1950 [for short, the "Act"]. The Additional Custodian
General had declined to interfere with the order. When the
petitioner had called that order in question in the writ
petition, the High Court held that the Additional Custodian
General had properly exercised the revisional jurisdiction
and it declined to interfere with the order due to the
inordinate delay in filing the revision. Thus this special
leave petition.
It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the judgment relied upon by the High
Court is not of any help to the view taken by the High Court
and that, therefore, the High Court was not right in its
conclusion. This Court in Purshotam Lal Dhawan v. Diwan
Chaman Lal [AIR 1961 SC 1371] has held that Section 27 of
the Administration of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950 does not
prescribe any period of limitation, but Rule 31 (5)
prescribes limitation of 60 days for filling an appeal and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
that it would provide as guide to the revisional authorities
to exercise the revisional power reasonable and faily. In
that case, entertaining the revision within one year was
held to be not unreasonable. In that behalf, this Court has
held that the powers of the Custodian General under Section
27 read with Rule 31(5) are not intended to be exercised
arbitrarily. Being a judicial power, he shall exercise his
discretion reasonably and it is him to consider whether in a
particular case he should entertain a revision beyond the
period of sixty days stated in Rule 31(5). It was held that
the exercise of the revisional powers after one year was
held to be not unreasonable.
It is seen that the petitioners had slept over the
rights over the property well over 14 years by which time
even the persons in possession had perfected their title by
prescription. Under those circumstances, a person who was
not diligent in exercising his rights and allowed third
party rights to accrue, cannot be permitted to agitate the
right after an inordinate delay. The revisional authority
has rightly declined to interfere with the order after
inordinate delay. Though revisional power was given to the
revisional authority without limitation,it is settled law
that the revisional powers should be exercised keeping in
view the rights of the parties and the effect of exercise of
the revisional powers and all other relevant facts. Under
these circumstances, we cannot hold that the High Court was
not justified in dismissing the writ petition.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.