BAWA HARIGIR versus ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, BHOPAL

BAWA HARIGIR versus ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, BHOPAL

Sections 2(d) and 40(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 are not unconstitutional because they are protected by Article 31(5)(b)(iii) of the Constitution. The Custodian's refusal to confirm a sale on the ground of absence of good faith is a judicial determination and not arbitrary. No...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: Bawa Harigir; Respondent: Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bhopal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 March 1961
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Supreme Court, Original Jurisdiction
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Evacuee Property, Confirmation of Sale, Arbitrariness of Administrative Action, Fundamental Rights Under Constitution of India
Constitutional Law Property Law Evacuee Property Confirmation of Sale Arbitrariness of Administrative Action Fundamental Rights Under Constitution of India

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bawa Harigir

Petitioner

Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bhopal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Supreme Court, Original Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 2(d) and 40(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, are unconstitutional for violating Article 31(2) of the Constitution by depriving property without authority of law or compensation.
  2. 2 Whether section 40(4)(a) confers arbitrary powers on the Custodian and is therefore ultra vires the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner was discriminated against in the matter of confirmation of transaction under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 2(d) and 40(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 are not unconstitutional because they are protected by Article 31(5)(b)(iii) of the Constitution. The Custodian's refusal to confirm a sale on the ground of absence of good faith is a judicial determination and not arbitrary. No constitutionally relevant discrimination was shown.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition is dismissed without costs.