1    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

CIVIL  APPEAL NO. 6384  OF  2010    Mahendra Pratap Dubey         …..Appellant          

:Versus:    

Managing Officer, Evacuee Property & Ors.    ....Respondent(s)    

J U D G M E N T  

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.  

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order  

dated 26th February, 2007 passed by the High Court of  

Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.30158  

of 1995, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant  

challenging the decision of the Chief Settlement  

Commissioner, Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow was  

rejected.  The Assistant Custodian/Managing Officer (Evacuee

2    

Property), Board of Revenue, Lucknow had allowed the  

application filed by respondent No.3 - Mainmum Nissa @  

Kumani, W/o Subrati @ Algu, R/o Village Singramau, Tehsil  

Shahganj, District Jaunpur, U.P., accepting her claim that she  

was occupying the suit property as owner thereof, having  

purchased the same at a public auction and in furtherance  

whereof a certificate of sale came to be issued in her favour  

and that respondent No.4 - Mohd. Sattar @ Mokhan (through  

whom the appellant claims his right, title and interest in the  

suit property) was causing obstruction to her possession in  

the suit property on the basis of some fictitious sale certificate  

dated 30th September, 1968.   

 2. Be it noted that the statutory authorities and the High  

Court have concurrently found that Ram Abhilakh (through  

whom the appellant claims to have acquired title in the suit  

property), to whom notice was issued by the authority and  

opportunity was given to produce the official record in his  

possession to substantiate that he had acquired title in the  

suit property pursuant to a transfer by the Custodian in

3    

favour of Md. Sattar @ Mokhan, failed to do so. He avoided  

filing any document. Further, there was no record or any entry  

in the official register to show that any sale certificate was  

issued in favour of Md. Sattar @ Mokhan by the concerned  

department.  

 3. On the other hand, it has been concurrently held that  

respondent No.3 had produced a certificate of sale dated 7th  

August, 1965 in her favour issued by the competent authority  

in reference to an auction conducted on 12th July, 1962, at  

which she purchased the subject property. Further, there was  

nothing to discredit the documents and the testimony of  

respondent No.3 that she had acquired right, title and interest  

in the suit property by virtue of a certificate of sale in her  

favour. Such finding has been recorded by the first authority  

vide judgment and order dated 4th May, 1985 and confirmed  

by the Collector, District Jaunpur, by dismissing the appeal  

preferred by the appellant bearing Case No.8/1984/522  

decided on 7th October, 1988 and further upheld by the Chief  

Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Lucknow, U.P.,

4    

being the revisional authority, by dismissing the revision of the  

appellant bearing Revision No.1(RR) No./1988-89) District  

Jaunpur, decided on 5th August, 1995. The High Court,  

therefore, declined to interfere in exercise of its writ  

jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition preferred by the  

appellant vide impugned judgment and order.   

 4. The moot question agitated by the appellant before the  

concerned authorities and up till the High Court, was that the  

Managing Officer, appointed under the Displaced Persons  

(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 had no  

jurisdiction to determine the validity of  a sale certificate  

issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property in exercise of the  

powers conferred upon him under Section 10(2)(o) of the  

Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. This  

contention, however, did not find favour with either the  

authorities or the High Court in view of the findings of fact  

recorded against the appellant. The appellant was neither able  

to assail the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the  

authorities before the High Court nor did he produce the

5    

original sale certificate dated 30th November, 1968 purportedly  

issued in favour of respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan),  

who had transferred the property to one Shri Vishwanath S/o  

Kukhekahar who in turn transferred the same to Ram  

Abhilakh S/o Parmananad, R/o Shahganj, District Jaunpur,  

from whom the appellant claims to have acquired the same.    

5. In the present appeal, the appellant has contended that if  

an Indian citizen had left India to live in Pakistan, his property  

would become an evacuee property as defined in Section 2(f) of  

the 1950 Act; and whence the Custodian alone would have the  

power under Section 10 of the 1950 Act to transfer such  

property in the manner prescribed by the 1950 Act. Further,  

such evacuee property could indeed be acquired under Section  

12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and  

Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 by the Central Government,  

consequent to which the property would lose the status of an  

evacuee property and the Custodian would be divested of its  

power to deal with the same. That property would then become  

a part of the compensation pool as envisaged under Section 14

6    

of the 1954 Act and only thereafter, could the Managing  

Officer assume control or authority over the same and dispose  

it of in the manner specified under Section 20 of the 1954 Act.   

On facts, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that  

respondent No.3 admits that the property is an evacuee  

property and has not claimed that it is a compensation pool  

property. For, in the suit filed by the husband of respondent  

No.3 (Subrati), being suit No.520/1982, it was asserted that  

the evacuee property has been auctioned off to respondent  

No.3 by the Custodian; but in the subject application dated  

30th April, 1982 field before the Managing Officer, respondent  

No.3 claims that the suit property was purchased in an  

auction and consideration amount was deposited in the office  

of the Managing Officer and the sale certificate dated 7th  

August, 1965 came to be issued in her favour by the Managing  

Officer. Similarly, in the counter affidavit filed before this  

Court, respondent No.3 had claimed that the property was  

transferred to her by the Managing Officer. In substance, the  

argument is that respondent No.3 has taken a contradictory

7    

stand before different authorities and courts, which must  

militate against her.  

  6. The contesting respondent, on the other hand, would  

contend that regard being had to the concurrent finding of fact  

recorded by the authorities concerned and also upheld by the  

High Court, the sole issue raised by the appellant about the  

jurisdiction of the Managing Officer does not merit any  

interference. An abstract debate bereft of any proof produced  

by the appellant to establish that the suit property was  

transferred to respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan) by the  

Custodian in terms of sale certificate dated 30th November,  

1968, does not merit examination. The question whether such  

a sale certificate was issued and, in fact, exists, could certainly  

be examined by the Managing Officer before whom the subject  

application dated 30th April, 1982 was filed by respondent  

No.3, by virtue of the enabling provision in Section 19 and the  

bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts in terms of Section 36 of  

1954 Act.  In such an enquiry, all aspects were open including  

to determine as to whether the sale certificate issued in favour

8    

of respondent No.3 by the office of the Managing Officer, is  

valid.  It is submitted that all the authorities including the  

High Court have concurrently found that the sale certificate  

issued in favour of respondent No.3 in respect of suit property  

dated 7th August, 1965 was genuine and valid. Furthermore, it  

has been concurrently found against the appellant that  

despite sufficient opportunity, his predecessor-in-title Ram  

Abhilakh S/o Parmanand did not produce any document; nor  

did respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan), through whom he  

(appellant) had claimed right, title and interest in the suit  

property, produce the original transfer document issued by the  

Custodian to prove the genuineness of the transaction and  

further there was no record or any entry in the official register   

evidencing that any sale certificate was issued in favour of  

respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan) by the department. In  

that view of the matter, the question of law sought to be  

agitated by the appellant about the authority of the Managing  

Officer to decide the matter in issue concerning the sale  

certificate issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property under

9    

the 1950 Act would be tenuous and the Court should not  

enter upon that issue.   

 7. We have heard Mr. Anurag Dubey, learned counsel  

appearing for the appellant and Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, learned  

counsel appearing for the respondents.   

8. Indisputably, the respondent No.3 had filed an  

application before the Assistant Custodian/Managing Officer  

(Evacuee Property), Board of Revenue, Lucknow, which  

highlighted two aspects. First, that it be declared or directed  

that she had acquired right, title and interest in the suit  

property by virtue of the sale certificate dated 7th August, 1965  

issued by the Managing Officer. Second, the claim of  

respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan) that the suit property  

was transferred in his favour by virtue of a sale certificate  

dated 30th November, 1968, issued by the Custodian is non-

existent and not genuine.  

  9. Respondent No.3 in the subject application had asserted  

that she had purchased the suit property at a public auction

10    

held on 12th July, 1962; and after payment of the sale  

consideration in the office of the Managing Officer, a certificate  

of sale was issued in her favour on 7th August, 1965. To  

buttress this submission, reliance has been placed by  

respondent No.3 - Mainmum Nissa @ Kumani on (i) Receipt  

issued by the Office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner,  

U.P., accepting the consideration amount paid by her, (ii)  

Acceptance Letter issued by the Assistant Custodian,  

Government of India, dated 10th June, 1965, and (iii)   

Certificate of Sale issued under the signature of the Managing  

Officer, Varanasi. The said documents read thus:    

 “Annexure -R2  

EVACUEE SIRAI  

FORM NO.1  OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER  

UTTAR PRADESH  

Srl. No. 4209    Receipt No.30  Dated: 12.7.62  

Received from Mst. Maimunnisha alias Kumman, 170/-  (Rupees One hundred seventy only) by cash on account of  

rent / licence fee / licence money in respect of / as earnest  money for KacchaKhander house of Evacuee Sirai in Village  Sgramau, Teh. Shahganj, Jaunpur.  

 Previous Receipt No.        Dated  

Note: Where payment is made by cheque and the cheque is  dishonoured by the bank, the receipt will be rendered in  valid.  

H/B (highest bid) 1700/-     

11    

     Sd/ (illegible)  12.7.62  

Jr. Accountant    

Subject to the approval of higher authorities”      

 “Annexure R-3  

Form No. IX  

ACCEPTANCE LETTER  

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA  

MINISTER OF REHABILITATION  

Office of the Assistant Custodian  

District Varanasi  

Dated: 10.6.1965  

Smt. Maimun Nisha alias Kumman w/o Subrati alias  

(illegible) Shahganj, Jaunpur.  

Subject: Sale Kaccha House Khander,  

Situated at: Sigramau, Shahganj, Jaunpur.  

Evacuee: Sirai  

You are hereby informed that you bid dated 12 July, 1962  

for Rs. 1700/- for the above noted property, has been  

accepted. You are further required to send by pot or to  

produce before the undersigned a treasury challan for the  

deposit of balance money of sale price amounting to  

Rs.1530/-, under Central head “S-Deposits and Advances –  

Part IV Suspense Accounts – P.A.O. Suspense – Transactions  

Adjustable with Pay and Accounts Office, Rehabilitation  

Delhi – Finally Adjustable by P.A.O. under the Head S –  

Deposits and Advances – Part II Deposits not bearing  

Interest – IVIL Deposits – Personal Deposits – Deposits on  

Account of Un-acquired Evacuee Property”, within 15 days  

from the date of issue of this letter.  

Sd/-  

(B.B. VERMA)  

Assistant Custodian”

12    

“Annexure R-4  

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA  MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION  

OFFICE OF THE MANAGING OFFICER  VARANASI  

APPENDIX XXII  

CERTIFICATE OF SALE  (Free Hold Property)  

Rule 90(15)  Dated:7.8.1965  

This is to certify that Smt. Maimun Nisha alias Kamman w/o  Subrati resident of Sigramau, Shahganj, Jaunpur having  

given the highest bid at a sale by public auction held in  pursuance of the powers conferred upon me under Section  20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and  

Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954) on the 12th day of July  1962 of the properly described in the Schedule and his bid  having been accepted and the valid thereof having been paid  

by him in cash/ by adjustment of compensation due on his  and his associates claims has been declared the purchaser of  

the said property with effect from 25th day of June 1965.  Given under my hand and seal of my office this 26th June of  1965.  

 SCHEDULE  

Kaccha House Khander   EVACUEE  Sigramau, Evacuee    Sirai Sale price 1700/-  Shahganj, Sirai  

Jaunpur    East – House of Jokhu& Field  

West – House of Gaya Dargai  North – Road  

South – House of Dase  Sd/-  

(B.B. Verma)  

Managing Officer  Varanasi”  

13    

10. From the acceptance letter, it is noticeable that it has  

been issued under the signature of one B.B. Verma, Assistant  

Custodian and the same person issued a certificate of sale in  

his capacity as Managing Officer. It must be kept in mind that  

the application was moved by respondent No.3 and not by the  

appellant or any of his stated predecessor(s)-in-title. In that  

situation, the enquiry into the application ought to be limited  

to the fact as to whether the documents relied upon by  

respondent No.3 before the authority, to claim that she had  

acquired right, title and interest in the suit property as a  

consequence of issuance of certificate of sale, were genuine.  

Neither the appellant nor his predecessor-in-title has  

challenged the validity of the said official documents issued in  

favour of respondent No.3 before the concerned authority or  

otherwise. In the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3,  

because of the stand taken by her that respondent No.4 (Md.  

Sattar @ Mokhan) was also claiming right, title and interest in  

the suit property by virtue of a sale certificate issued in his  

favour by the Custodian, notices were issued by the competent

14    

authority to him as well as Vishwanath S/o Sukhi and Ram  

Abhilakh S/o Parmanand to evoke their response. Despite  

opportunity given by the competent authority, they failed to  

produce any document, much less original documents,  

evidencing that the Custodian had issued a sale certificate in  

respect of the suit property in favour of respondent No.4 (Md.  

Sattar @ Mokhan).  

11. The appellant as well as respondent No.4 having failed to  

produce any original document and since there was no record  

or entry in the official register to show that such a sale  

certificate was issued in favour of respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar  

@ Mokhan) by the Department, as concurrently found by the  

authorities, it must follow that their claim in respect of the  

suit property remained unsubstantiated. In other words, the  

appellant has not been able to establish any causal connection  

with the suit property either on account of allotment of the  

suit property to him or his predecessors, by the competent  

authority or otherwise. The Assistant Custodian on analysing  

the factual position in its judgment observed thus:

15    

“I have gone through the file and found there is no such  documents have been filed by the objector whose  

genuineness can be examined except the objection which  has been filed on behalf of O.P. Sri Ram Abhilakh stating  that this tribunal has got no jurisdiction to examine the  

genuineness of sale certificate that which one is correct out  of these two documents.  

 In this regard I have to mention that this has been the  consistent view of the higher tribunal under the O.P. (C & P)  

Act No. 44 of 1954, that in a case in which the nature of  each complaint is that some forged deeds have been reported  to have been issued by the Assistant Castodian/Managing  

Officer the said officer can meet enquiries and can ask the  person concerned to produced the relevant papers to  

examine their veracity find out if any such deed was at all  issued. In this connection a copy of order of Sri Prem Narain,  Settlement Commissioner (Judicial) passed on 11.10.76 in  

appeal No.14/SC/PN/U/70,SriMohd. Shamim Vs. Managing  Officer, Lucknow was filed as an examper, in which it has  

been held that the Managing Officer can certainly look into  the matter on receipt of complaint and can pass appropriate  order on that basis. Accordingly, the parties were directed to  

produce relevant papers, the applicant Smt. MaimunNissa  filed the original & photo copy of receipt of earnest money,  acceptance letter dt. 10.6.65 and the sale certificate dt.  

7.7.65 referred to above, and supported her contention on  affidavit. Sri Ram Abhilekh did not produce any document  

and also did not produce Sri Mohd. Satar @ Mohkan the  alleged original transferred from the custodian to prove the  genuineness of the transaction. On the other hand the  

evaded to file the documentation the plea that the same  cannot be looked into by the tribunal; which as stated above  

can always be looked in this circumstances of the case.     In the absence of any papers or evidence of Sri Ram  

Abilekh the matter was examined with the available  records.  The connected file shows that first the house was put to  

sale on 16.3.62 when the bid of Smt. Amina was the  highest for Rs.1210/- and an amount of Rs.121/- was  

deposited but subsequently for non deposit the balance

16    

money the sale was cancelled and the earnest money  deposited was forfeited.   

It further seems from the documents filed that the house  was put to sale on 12.7.82 and it was knocked down in  

favour of MaimunNissa, who deposited Rs.170/- as  earnest money and on receipt of acceptance letter  dt.10.6….. she deposited the balance sale consideration  

money on 26.6.65 and thereafter the certificate of sale  was issued in her favour on 7.7.65 by Sri B.B. Verma,  Managing Officer, Varanasi. I have seen the original  

documents. There is nothing to discredit the said  documents and the testimony of Smt. MaimumNissa.  

There is no record in the office or any entry in the office  register to show that any Sale Certificate was issued in  favour of Mohd. Sattar @ Mohkan by this department.  

The sale certificate issued in favour of Smt.  MaimunNissa is accordingly held valid.”    

 (emphasis supplied)  

12. This finding of fact and conclusion came to be affirmed  

by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority  

for which reason the High Court declined to interfere. Once it  

is held that no sale certificate issued in favour of respondent  

No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan)  by the Custodian of Evacuee  

Property, under the 1950 Act is forthcoming nor any entry in  

the official register is found in that regard, all persons claiming  

through him (including the appellant) must suffer the  

consequences of such a finding of fact. Notably, respondent  

No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan) has not claimed right in respect

17    

of the suit property in any other capacity, and in that view of  

the matter, we fail to understand as to how Md. Sattar @  

Mokhan, or any person claiming through him, could be  

permitted to question the validity of the sale certificate dated  

7th August, 1965 issued by the Managing Officer in favour of  

respondent No.3 (Mainmum Nissa @ Kumani).   

13. The appellant had placed emphasis on the finding  

rendered in the civil suit filed by the husband of respondent  

No.3, for permanent injunction against respondent No.4 (Md.  

Sattar @ Mokhan). However, we agree with the concurrent  

view taken by the authority concerned that the said finding  

will be of no avail to the appellant. For, respondent No.3 was  

not impleaded as a party in the said suit.   

14. Suffice it to observe that the appellant, having failed to  

produce the sale certificate in favour of  respondent No.4 (Md.  

Sattar @ Mokhan) issued by the Custodian of Evacuee  

Property under the 1950 Act, he cannot be heard to raise the  

issue of jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to deal with the  

subject property, including the validity of the sale certificate

18    

issued in favour of respondent No.3.  A deeper enquiry as to  

how the Managing Officer assumed jurisdiction to issue the  

sale certificate in favour of respondent No.3 would become  

relevant and essential only if the appellant was able to  

substantiate the fact, at least prima facie, that the suit  

property was, in fact, transferred in favour of respondent No.4  

(Md. Sattar @ Mokhan) by the Custodian of Evacuee Property  

under the 1950 Act. Accordingly, this appeal must fail.   

15. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed with costs.   

…………………………..….J.                (A.M. Khanwilkar)  

…………………………..….J.               (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)  

New Delhi;  

November 16, 2018.