Case: Gorkha Ram &amp; Others Vs. Custodian General of India, Delhi &amp; Others

2. The appellants and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are residents of village Baland, Tehsil and District Rohtak, and are members of the body of proprietors of that village. The village Baland is divided between three estates. The plot in suit is in the estate known as Barsan. One Fakira, a mendicant and a non-proprietor, had his house on the plot in suit. In January 1950, the Custodian of Evacuee Property issued a notice under S. 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949, stating that the appellants were in unauthorised possession of the house of Fakira a Muslim evacuee, and that they should either vacate the house or show cause to the contrary. The appellants filed their objections to the notice. The Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, by his order dated September 3, 1950 rejected the objections raised by the appellants and declared the house to be evacuee property. The Deputy Custodian passed this order after he got an enquiry made through the Revenue Assistant (Rehabilitation). The appellants went in appeal to the Additional Custodian, Evacuee Property, who got further enquiry made to ascertain whether Mumtaz son of Fakira, evacuee, had been in occupation of the house up to the date of the migration of the Muslims as a result of the partition. This enquiry revealed that Mumtaz had continued to reside in the village Baland and that a son was born to him in July, 1947. The Additional Custodian therefore agreed with the report and the order of the Deputy Custodian that the property in suit was evacuee property. The appellants then filed a revision before the Custodian General. It was dismissed on June 17, 1952. The Custodian General observed that there was more than sufficient evidence to establish that Mumtaz continued to be in possession of the house in dispute up to July, 1947.3. Thereafter, the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the order of the Deputy Custodian on the grounds that the Deputy Custodian gave no notice or opportunity to them to meet the case and that the Custodian had no jurisdiction in the matter in view of the provisions of the wajib-ul-arz according to which the house of a non-proprietor, on his leaving the village, vested in the proprietary body. The learned Single Judge who heard the petition held that the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Act XXXI of 1950), had been complied with throughout and referred the question whether the site occupied by a non-proprietor vested or not in the Custodian after the occupier had abandoned it, to a larger Bench in view of his opinion that the decision of another Single Judge in Joti Prashad v. Bhawani Lal required re-consideration. The Division Bench then decided this question and held the right of a non-proprietor to occupy a village site was right in property, though it might not be an interest in property and that this right vested in the Custodian if the non-propriter left the country and became an evacuee. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed and it is against this order that this appeal has been filed.

Reasoning: The occasion when they will not be extinguished would be when a tenant becomes an evacuee within the meaning of the Act, or thereafter. It follows the sub-sec. (1) of S. 18 provided for the non-extinguishment of those occupancy rights which would have been extinguished otherwise on the tenants becoming an evacuee and that therefore the person having such rights must be a tenant. If he is not a tenant, then the occasion contemplated by sub-sec. (1) of S. 18, for the application of its provisions, does not arise. This is further clear from the latter part of this sub-section which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law etc., neither the evacuee nor the Custodian, whether as an occupancy tenant or as a tenant for a certain time, shall be liable to be ejected or be deemed to have become so liable on any ground whatsoever for any default. This latter part also makes it clear that the persons contemplated by the section are the tenants, whether occupancy tenants or tenants for a time certain. We therefore hold that the provisions of S. 18 apply to the occupancy rights of ais clear that Fukira who resided in the house in suit, was not a tenant of it. He occupied the site and probably built the house himself on getting the necessary permission from themendicants are mentioned as one of the types of non-proprietors settled in the Shamlat of the estate. It is clear from these provisions that Fakira, a non-proprietor, had no such right in the site as would make him a tenant of it. He just had a right to occupy it and build a house which was, however, heirtable and transferable only with the consent of the proprietor.8. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of S. 18, do not apply to Fakiras rights in the plot in suit and cannot therefore override the provisions of the wajib-ul-arz according to which his right to reside in the house in suit came to an end when he abandoned the village on his migrating tofind it difficult to accept this contention. The abandonment is voluntary, though the volition to abandon arises on account of circumstances over which Fakira had no control. He left the village and migrated to Pakistan because he though that to be the better thing to do. This point was also not taken before the Highdo not think this case supports theterms of the wajib-ul-arz already mentioned, make it clear that no interest in the site on which Fakira was settled was given to Fakira by the proprietors of the village. He was just granted a heritable right to occupy it for residence. The house reverted to the possession of the proprietors if he diedobservation does not help the respondents case because no interest was created in Fakira and therefore no question of his transferring that interest arises. The wajib-ul-arz only expresses this much, that there was no customary right to sell or mortgage residential houses remove the material or build burat brick houses without the consent of the proprietors. It does not say that the non-proprietor can transfer his residential right to anyone with or without the consent of the proprietor. We therefore do not agree with thisif they do those rights get extinguished in view of the provisions of the wajib-ul-arz and therefore there could be no vesting of those rights in the Custodian if the vesting of those rights is not prevented on account of the applicability of S. 18 of the Act. We have already held that S. 18 does not apply as Fakira was not a tenant. The expression evacuee property as it stood in the Act till its amendment in 1953, meant any property in which an evacuee had any right or interest, whether personal or as a trustee or as a beneficiary or in any other capacity and included any property and c. Fakira had no right in any capacity in the property in suit when the Administration of Evacuee Property Act came into force in 1950 and therefore the property in suit could not have been evacuee property.13. Lastly, we do not find any support in the provisions of the wajib-ul-arz or in anywas nobodys case the Fakira and his son had left the village temporarily and were to return. It was said in paragraph 5 of the written statement of respondents 1 to 3 that Fakira abandoned the house only in 1947 at the time of partition. The entire case was that Fakira had migrated to Pakistan and had abandoned the village.14. We are therefore of opinion that Fakira did not possess any such right in the land in suit which could vest in the Custodian and that therefore the property in suit is not evacuee property.