BISHAMBAR NATH KOHLI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

BISHAMBAR NATH KOHLI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

The Custodian-General had jurisdiction to entertain the revision application against the Deputy Custodian’s order, since by statutory fictions the impugned order is deemed to have been passed under the 1950 Act, permitting revisional jurisdiction. However, the lack of opportunity afforded to the appellants to meet the evidence produced by the State constituted a gross breach of natural justice, requiring the matter to be remanded for proper adjudication.

Parties
Appellants: Bishambar Nath Kohli and others; Respondent No. 1: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondents: Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 October 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Custodian General of Evacuee Property, Revision Petition No. 1209 R/up/1961
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Evacuee Property, Revisional Jurisdiction, Natural Justice, Finality of Administrative Orders
Property Law Administrative Law Evacuee Property Revisional Jurisdiction Natural Justice Finality of Administrative Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bishambar Nath Kohli and others

Appellants

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent No. 1

Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Custodian General of Evacuee Property, Revision Petition No. 1209 R/up/1961

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Custodian-General had jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition under s. 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, against an order passed under a repealed Ordinance.
  2. 2 Whether the procedure adopted by the Custodian-General violated principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Custodian-General had jurisdiction to entertain the revision application against the Deputy Custodian’s order, since by statutory fictions the impugned order is deemed to have been passed under the 1950 Act, permitting revisional jurisdiction. However, the lack of opportunity afforded to the appellants to meet the evidence produced by the State constituted a gross breach of natural justice, requiring the matter to be remanded for proper adjudication.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Custodian-General set aside.
  • Matter remanded to Custodian-General for fresh disposal according to law after properly admitting evidence and granting opportunity to both parties.