DAFEDAR NIRANJAN SINGH AND ANOTHER versus CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY (PB.) AND ANOTHER

DAFEDAR NIRANJAN SINGH AND ANOTHER versus CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY (PB.) AND ANOTHER

The Supreme Court held that an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property that had become final under the applicable previous Ordinance could not be reopened or revised by the Custodian-General under section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, as section 58(3) did not give such retrospective effect or deprive the order of the finality it had acquired. The words 'any time' and 'any Custodian' in section 27 must be confined to orders not yet final when the Act came into force.

Parties
Appellant: Dafedar Niranjan Singh; Appellant: Major Bhagwant Singh; Respondent: Custodian, Evacuee Property (Pb.); Respondent: Another (State)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 March 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Order Dated February 1, 1958, of the Deputy Custodian General, Evacuee Property, New Delhi
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Evacuee Property, Powers of Revision, Finality of Orders, Retrospective Effect, Repeal and Saving Clauses
Property Law Evacuee Property Powers of Revision Finality of Orders Retrospective Effect Repeal and Saving Clauses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dafedar Niranjan Singh

Appellant

Major Bhagwant Singh

Appellant

Custodian, Evacuee Property (Pb.)

Respondent

Another (State)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Order Dated February 1, 1958, of the Deputy Custodian General, Evacuee Property, New Delhi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the operation of section 58(3) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 applies only to administrative acts or also to judicial orders passed by the Custodian.
  2. 2 Whether the order dated June 6, 1949, passed under Ordinance IX of 2004 could be revised under section 27 of the Act after it had become final under the previous Ordinance.
  3. 3 Whether the chain of fictions created by successive ordinances and section 58(3) was broken, rendering the order incapable of revision under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property that had become final under the applicable previous Ordinance could not be reopened or revised by the Custodian-General under section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, as section 58(3) did not give such retrospective effect or deprive the order of the finality it had acquired. The words 'any time' and 'any Custodian' in section 27 must be confined to orders not yet final when the Act came into force.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The order of the Custodian-General is set aside.
  • The order of the Custodian dated June 6, 1949, is restored.