Mahendra Pratap Dubey vs Managing Officer,Evacuee Property

3. On the other hand, it has been concurrently held that respondent No.3 had produced a certificate of sale dated 7th August, 1965 in her favour issued by the competent authority in reference to an auction conducted on 12th July, 1962, at which she purchased the subject property. Further, there was nothing to discredit the documents and the testimony of respondent No.3 that she had acquired right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of a certificate of sale in her favour. Such finding has been recorded by the first authority vide judgment and order dated 4th May, 1985 and confirmed by the Collector, District Jaunpur, by dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant bearing Case No.8/1984/522 decided on 7th October, 1988 and further upheld by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Lucknow, U.P., 4 being the revisional authority, by dismissing the revision of the appellant bearing Revision No.1(RR) No./1988-89) District Jaunpur, decided on 5th August, 1995. The High Court, therefore, declined to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant vide impugned judgment and order.

4. The moot question agitated by the appellant before the concerned authorities and up till the High Court, was that the Managing Officer, appointed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of a sale certificate issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 10(2)(o) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. This contention, however, did not find favour with either the authorities or the High Court in view of the findings of fact recorded against the appellant. The appellant was neither able to assail the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities before the High Court nor did he produce the 5 original sale certificate dated 30th November, 1968 purportedly issued in favour of respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan), who had transferred the property to one Shri Vishwanath S/o Kukhekahar who in turn transferred the same to Ram Abhilakh S/o Parmananad, R/o Shahganj, District Jaunpur, from whom the appellant claims to have acquired the same.

13. The appellant had placed emphasis on the finding rendered in the civil suit filed by the husband of respondent No.3, for permanent injunction against respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan). However, we agree with the concurrent view taken by the authority concerned that the said finding will be of no avail to the appellant. For, respondent No.3 was not impleaded as a party in the said suit.

14. Suffice it to observe that the appellant, having failed to produce the sale certificate in favour of respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan) issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property under the 1950 Act, he cannot be heard to raise the issue of jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to deal with the subject property, including the validity of the sale certificate 18 issued in favour of respondent No.3. A deeper enquiry as to how the Managing Officer assumed jurisdiction to issue the sale certificate in favour of respondent No.3 would become relevant and essential only if the appellant was able to substantiate the fact, at least prima facie, that the suit property was, in fact, transferred in favour of respondent No.4 (Md. Sattar @ Mokhan) by the Custodian of Evacuee Property under the 1950 Act. Accordingly, this appeal must fail.

15. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

November 16, 2018.