Civil Appeal No 2233 of 1969
From the Judgment and Order dated 11 3 1968 of the Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition No 12662
Sobhagmal Jain and section K Jain for the Appellant
E C Agarwala and Girish Chandra for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA J
This is an appeal by certificate by Shri Abdul Qadir from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing his Writ Petition
The house in question belonged to one Mohammed Amin Khan
The appellant purchased the house from the said owner on 10 7 1948 for Rs 12000
It appears that neither the appellant nor Mohammed Amin Khan was an evacuee within the meaning of the  hereinafter called the Evacuee Property Act
But under some mistaken notion probably the appellant was treated as an evacuee and the house was declared as an evacuee property on 15 11 1951 in accordance with the Evacuee Property Act
After such declaration the question that the property was an evacuee property could not be reopened and became final
Upon that footing the appellant filed an application on 26 9 1953 under section 161 of the Evacuee Property Act as the section then stood for grant of a certificate
On 27 10 1956 the Central Government granted a certificate under the unamended provision of law contained in section 16
Pursuant to the above the appellant made an application to the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property for restoration of the house under sub section 2 of section 16
The Asstt
Custodian respondent No 1 passed an order on 18 3 1957 restoring the house to the appellant
But before that Shri Ajjumal respondent No 2 had been inducted as a tenant in the house by the Custodian after it was declared as an evacuee property
The appellant was directed to take symbolic possession of the house allowing the said tenant to continue in its occupation on receipt of rent from him
The appellant came to know later that on 11 11 1960 the Central Government passed an order under section 20A of the  hereinafter 995 referred to as the Displaced Persons Act whereby it was ordered that in respect of the house in question action be taken in accordance with the said provision of law
On 6 12 1960 the Central Government ordered that it had revised its order dated 11 11 1960 and the petitioner was entitled to compensation only under section 20A of the Displaced Persons Act
In the Civil Suit filed by the appellant against Ajjumal it transpired that a sale deed had been executed in his favour as he was a displaced person in occupation of the house and the appellant was entitled to compensation only
He therefore filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the action of the Assistant Custodian respondent No 2 and the Union of India respondent No 3
The writ case was contested by all the respondents and it was asserted that Ajjumal being a sitting allottee had to be rehabilitated and the appellant was entitled to compensation only
The High Court has quoted section 16 of the Evacuee Property Act as it stood prior to 22 18 1956 and the section as it came into force after that date
It has rightly pointed out that there was a change of procedure in the two provisions
According to section 16 as it stood before 22 10 1956 the application for certificate was to be made to the Central Government and the Central Government in its discretion was to issue the certificate
On the issuance of such a certificate after following certain procedure the restoration order had to be made by the Custodian of the Evacuee Property
In the present case only a certificate was issued on 27 10 1956
The High Court is right in holding that the certificate so issued in accordance with the old law was not valid
Attempts were made before the High Court to show that the said certificate was issued pursuant to an order alleged to have been made on 1 101956
The High Court was not satisfied about the correctness of this new stand
Nothing could be pointed out to us to persuade us to take a view different from the one taken by the High Court in regard to the question of the invalidity of the certificate issued in favour of the appellant on 27 10 1956
There is another difficulty in the way of the appellant and that comes in because of the provision of law contained in section 20A of the Displaced Persons Act
The said section also had undergone a change from time to time and at the relevant time sub section 1 of section 20A stood as follows 1 Where any evacuee or his heir has made an application under Sec
16 of the Evacuee Property Act and the Central Government is of opinion that it is not expedient or 996 practicable to restore the whole or any part of such property to the applicant by reason of the property or part thereof being in occupation of a displaced person or otherwise then notwithstanding anything contained in the Evacuee Property Act and this Act it shall be lawful for the Central Government a to transfer to the applicant in lieu of the evacuee property or any part thereof any immovable property in the compensation pool or any part thereof being in the opinion of the Central Government as nearly as may be of the same value as the evacuee property or as the case may be any part thereof or b to pay to the applicant amount in cash from the compensation pool in lieu of the evacuee property or part thereof as the Central Government having regard to the value of the evacuee property or part thereof may in the circumstances deem fit
Explanation The provisions of this sub section shall apply whether or not a certificate for the restoration of the evacuee property has been issued to the applicant under sub sec
1 of sec
16 of the Evacuee Property Act as in force before the commencement of the Administration of Evacuee Property Amendment Ordinance 1956 if the evacuee property has not in fact been restored to the applicant
 It would be noticed that the provisions of section 20A 1 have got the over riding effect by virtue of the Explanation appended to it even after a certificate for the restoration of the evacuee property had been issued to the applicant on 27 10 1956
In spite of the certificate it was open to the Central Government not to allow restoration of the house to the appellant and to pay him compensation only
The Central Government has adopted the latter course
Respondent No 2 a displaced person was inducted as a tenant in the property long time back
The property was sold to him also by the Custodian
In such a situation it was just and proper to refuse restoration of the property to the appellant and to pay him compensation only
But we were informed that the amount of compensation payable to the appellant has been determined at a somewhat low figure being in the neighborhood of Rs 8000 only
The appellant had 997 purchased the house for Rs 12000 in the year 1948
In that view of the matter we recommend for consideration of the Government whether it would be possible for them to enhance the amount of compensation at least to the figure of Rs 12000
The matter is finally within their jurisdiction and they may decide it as they think it fit and proper to do
For the reasons stated above this appeal fails and is dismissed but without costs
PBR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant purchased a house in July 1948
Although neither the vendor nor the appellant was an evacuee within the meaning of the  the appellant was treated as an evacuee and the house was declared evacuee property in 1951
In response to the appellant s petition filed in 1953 a certificate was granted by the Government under the unamended provisions of section 16 of the Act
When the appellant asked for restoration of the house the Assistant Custodian passed an order in 1957 granting restoration
In the meantime since respondent No 2 had been inducted as a tenant in the house by the Custodian after it was declared evacuee property the appellant was asked to take symbolic possession of the house allowing the tenant to continue in possession
Section 20A1 of the provided that where an evacuee had made an application under section 16 of the Evacuee Property Act 1950 and the Central Government is of opinion that it is not expedient or practicable to restore the whole or any part of the property to the applicant it shall be lawful for the Central Government to pay to the applicant the value of the property in cash from the compensation pool in lieu of the evacuee property
The Explanation to this section provided that the provisions of this sub section shall apply whether or not a certificate for the restoration of the evacuee property had been issued to the applicant under section 161 of the 1950 Act
The Central Government revised its earlier order dated November 11 1960 and gave compensation to the appellant under section 20A of the 1954 Act
The appellant s writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Custodian was dismissed by the High Court
Dismissing the appeal  HELD 1
According to section 16 of the 1950 Act as it stood before October 22 1956 an application for certificate was to be made to the Central Government
On the issuance of the certificate restoration order was made by the Custodian of Evacuee Property
In the instant case the certificate was issued on October 27 1956
The High Court was therefore right in holding that the certificate issued in accordance with the old law was not valid
995 D F 2
The provisions of section 20A1 have got the over riding effect by virtue of the Explanation appended to it even after a certificate for the restora 994 tion of the evacuee property had been issued to the applicant on October 27 1956
In spite of the certificate it was open to the Central Government not to allow restoration of the house to the appellant and to pay him compensation only
The Central Government has adopted the latter course
Respondent No 2 a displaced person was inducted as a tenant in the property a long time back
The property was sold to him by the Custodian
In such a situation it was just and proper to refuse restoration of the property to the appellant and to pay him only compensation
996 F H