Case: Bawa Harigir Vs. Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bhopal

2. The relevant facts may now be stated. The petitioner purchased 195.51 acres of land in the former Bhopal State from one Babu Rehmatullah on June 23, 1950, for a consideration of Rs. 3,500/-. Rahmatullah was declared to be an intending evacuee by the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property. Eventually he left India for Pakistan on June 20, 1951.3. On June 12, 1951, the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the land which he had purchased from Rehmatullah should not be declared to be "evacuee property". After hearing the petitioner the property was declared to the evacuee property on August 8, 1951. The petitioner challenged that order in appeal as well as in revision as provided in the Act but was unsuccessful. A writ petition preferred by him before the Judicial Commissioner, Bhopal, was dismissed in limine on July 14, 1954. He has, therefore, come up to this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution.

Reasoning: The short answer to this contention is that the provisions of a law made in pursuance of any agreement entered into between the Government of India and the Government of any other country or otherwise with respect to property declared by law to be evacuee property will not be affected by the evacuee property will not be affected by the provisions of Cl. 2 of Art.Art. 31(1) prohibits is "deprivation of property save by authority of law." No doubt the petitioner can say that he is deprived of his property because of the declaration made by the Custodian that it is evacuee property. But then this declaration has been made in pursuance of a law enacted by Parliament. If as contended by him, we has held that the law is unconstitutional the position would have beenfrom the fact that the words "good faith" occur in a number of statutes and have acquired a definite meaning in courts of law, it may be pointed out that the power conferred by sub-sec. (4) of S. 40 is in the nature of a judicial power and, therefore, the absence of a standard for the determination of the question would not render the provisionwould repeat that the order of the Custodian is a judicial order and merely because he may have gone wrong in dealing with one case we cannot hold that the petitioner has been discriminated against.