Full Judgment Text
2023 INSC 638
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6168 OF 2016
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
MEER BAKSH & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants.
2. The predecessor-in-title of the respondents who was
the holder of the property was one Sultan Mohammad. The
appellant-State contended that the property held by the said
person is an evacuee property within the meaning of Section
2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950
(for short "the 1950 Act") as the said Sultan Mohammad was
an evacuee within the meaning of clause (d) of Section 2 of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.07.22
12:40:36 IST
Reason:
the 1950 Act.
Civil Appeal No.6168 of 2016 1/3
3. After having perused the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, we find the learned Judge has held that it was
categorically admitted by the State in its reply that the
said Sultan Mohammad never left for Pakistan. It is not
shown to us that the reply does not contain such admission.
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."
4. Thus, we have to proceed on the footing that it is an
admitted position that the said Sultan Mohammad never left
India and therefore, he cannot be an evacuee within the
meaning of the 1950 Act.
Civil Appeal No.6168 of 2016 2/3
5. 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.
6. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
7. We 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.
..........................J.
(ABHAY S.OKA)
..........................J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
NEW DELHI;
July 19, 2023.
Civil Appeal No.6168 of 2016 3/3