Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: s. 10(2)(o) – Sale certificate issued by the custodian of evacuee property – Validity of – Jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to determine – On facts, application by respondent no. 3 claiming that she was occupying the suit property as a owner, having purchased the same at a public auction and in furtherance whereof sale certificate was issued in her favour and that respondent No.4, through whom the appellant claimed 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 – Allowed by the Managing Officer (Evacuee Property) and thereafter, upheld by the Authorities and the High Court – On appeal, held: Application was moved by respondent no.3 and not by appellant or any of his stated predecessor-in-title, as such 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 – Furthermore, 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 – Respondent no.4 has not claimed right in respect of the suit property in any other capacity and appellant has failed to produce the sale certificate in favour of respondent no.4 issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property – In view thereof, respondent no. 4, or any person claiming through him-appellant, could not be permitted to question the validity of the sale certificate issued by the Managing Officer in favour of respondent No.3 and the issue of jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to deal with the subject property.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The application was moved by respondent No.3 and not by the appellant or any of his stated predecessor(s)-intitle. 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 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 authority to him as well as others to evoke their response. However, 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. [Para 10][800-D-F]
1.2 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 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. [Para 11][800-G-H; 801-A]
1.3 The finding of fact and conclusion that sale certificate issued in favour of respondent no. 3 is valid, 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 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 has not claimed right in respect of the suit property in any other capacity, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be understood as to how respondent no. 4, or any person claiming through him, could be permitted to question the validity of the sale certificate issued by the Managing Officer in favour of respondent No.3. [Para 12][802-E-G]
1.4 The appellant, having failed to produce the sale certificate in favour of respondent No.4 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 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 by the Custodian of Evacuee Property under the 1950 Act. [Para 14][803-B-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.