That judgment is reported as Rabia Bai v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property 1 .
The re spondents are, therefore under a statutory obligation to refund to the appellant the sale price paid by her.
The petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge Ramaprasada Rao J. who took the view that having regard to the scheme of the Rehabilita tion Act and the policy reflected therein and the transfer of the cash balances with the Custodian to the companypensation pool, it was number open tO the writ petitioner to assail transfer funds or any orders passed in that behalf and therefore she was number entitled to a writ of certiorari sought for, much less a writ of mandamus.
1 1961 3 S.C.R. 448.
It was presented at the Collectors Office, Madras and was duly stamped on June 27, 1949.
Against that order Of the Custodi an General, Rabia Bai came in appeal by special leave to this Court.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 13 12 1974 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
Thereupon, she was informed by a letter, dated August 1, 1966, by the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay, that numberthird party claim against the immoveable property is payable by his office as Rule 22 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Central Rules has since been deleted as a result of the amendment of s. 10 m by Act 91 of 1956.
Rabia Bai went in appeal against the order of the Assistant Custodian to the Custodian.
Thereafter on August 3, 1968, she made a petition under s. 10 2 m and n of the Act read with Rule 22 before the Custodian.
With regard to the petitioners claim for return of the sale price, it was held that she still companytinues to be entitled to get the money from and out of the funds that may subsequently companye into the hands of the Custodian.
The Assistant Custodian companysidered Rabia Bais applica tion for companyfirmation of the sale in the light of the decla ration already made by him, that the vendor being an evacu ee, the property was evacuee property.
Aggrieved by that order, Rabia Bai appealed under C1.
The third Respondent, Union of India was further directed to place at the dis posal of the Custodian the said sum for the purpose of the refund.
The application was resisted by some tenants on several grounds.
Karachi for execu tion by the vendor.
1259 of 1971 in the High Court.
Accordingly on July 31, 1951, he made an order refusing to companyfirm the transaction.
This appellate order was pronounced by the Custodian on February 4, 1953.
In 1968, Rabia Bai filed a writ petition in the High Court for return of the sale companysideration.
2,40,000/ to her but without success.
In his view the words out of funds in his possession in s. 10 2 n of the Act show that it would be attracted only where funds are lying with the Custodian.
Even so, he proceeded to examine the question as to whether it companyld be said to have been entered into in good faith.
By an order, dated August 18, 1966, Government of India directed that all the surplus balance of the evacuee pool lying in the personal deposit account of the Custodian be transferred to the Dy.
15 of the Letters Patent to a Bench of the High Court.
Thereafter, the Act was amended by Act 91 of 1956.
Rabia Bais aforesaid appeal Civil Appeal No.
2,40,000/ was made by Rabia Bai to the evacuee in pursuance of the infructuous sale, the payment is also number vitiated in any manner as the sale was refused companyfirmation, number because of want of bona fides in the transferee, but on account of want of bona fides in the transferor.
She came to know in 1949 that premises No.
He referred to the relevant features of the transaction and came to the companyclu sion that he would number be justified in companyfirming it.
2,40,000/ out of which Rs.
The Ordinance was extended to.
General of Evacuee Property.
Madras on August 23, Ordi nance XII of 1940 was repealed by Ordinance 27 of 1949, which in turn was replaced by the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 Central Act 31 of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
2,40,000/to Rabia Bai.
Rabia Bai repeatedly petitioned for the return of the sale companysideration of Rs.
In this view, the .Bench allowed the appeal and by a writ of certiorari quashed the impugned orders and numberifications.
Section 40 of the Act companyresponding to s. 25 2 of Ord.
Consequent ly, by a sale deed, dated April 29, 1949, she purchased this property from one Abdul Gani Jan Mohd.
Accountant General, New Delhi to form part of the companypensation pool under s. 14 1 b of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act of 1954.
She petitioned to the Prime Minister on May 16, 1966.
The writ peti tion was withdrawn on July 11, 1968.
the Regis trar registered it on August 11, 1949.
By a numberification, dated February 20, 1957, the aforesaid Rule 22 was deleted.
Thereafter, the sale deed was duly engrossed and sent to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This peti tion was rejected by the Custodian under an order, dated November 2, 1968, mainly on the ground that the properties of the evacuee were acquired by the Central Government under s. 12 of the Displaced Persons C. R. Act, 1954 and the sale proceeds of the said properties have been credited to the companypensation pool.
Rabia Bai then moved the Custodian General in revision, who dismissed the same.
22 of 1956 was dismissed by this Court on January 12, 1961.
The Act had retrospective operation with effect from August 14, 1947.
M. Tarkunde, K. Rajendra Chaudhury, Mrs. Veena Khan na, S.L. Setia Miss Manek Tarkunde, for the Respondent.
2,40,000/The claim was registered by the Assistant Custodian On October 1, 1954.
On December 19, 1949, the vendee Rabia Bai, applied for companyfirmation of the sale transaction in her favour.
who duly executed it and sent it back.
30.000/ , the balance of the companysideration was paid before the Registering Officer to Mr. M. H, Gani who held a power of attorney from the vendor.
It was further directed that a writ of mandamus shall issue requiring the 1st respondent Resp.
Relying On a letter written by the vendor to one Mohideen on July 4, 1949 wherein he had stated that if the matter is delayed there would be many sort of new difficulties as you know the government are passing new rules every day, the Custodian took the view that the vendors intention was to dispose of and companyvert his properties in India into cash and to take them away to Pakistan as quickly as possible so as to evade the restrictions of the evacuee law which he apprehended companyld be extended to Madras any day.
who had left for Pakistan in 1947, soon after the partition of the Indian sub continent.
With regard to the argument that she companyld number be paid because the fund with the Custodian had been transferred in companypliance with the orders of the Government of India to the companypensation pool formed trader s. 14 1 b of the Rehabili tation Act, it was held that the Custodian was companypetent to transfer only surplus fund left with him, in excess of what was required by him for meeting the outstanding claims registered under r. 22.
The Bench held that since it was number denied or refuted by the respondents Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay, Regional Settlement Commissioner and Union of India that payment of Rs.
It was specified that the direction regarding the refund and payment shall be companyplied with within three months.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave.
Gobind Das, and Girish Chandra, for the Appellant.
Abdul Gani came to Madras in April 1949 and executed the sale deed in her favour for a companysideration of Rs.
She has her residence at Grange Yercund.
directed against a judgment dated December 13, 974, of the High Court of Madras, arises out of these facts Respondent Rabia Bai, is a citizen of India.
The Custodian found that the sale transac tion was supported by valuable companysideration.
Ordinance XII of 1949 was promulgated.
After obtaining the clear ance certificate from the Income tax Department.
On this ground, he dismissed the writ petition.
There is at present, numberamount in the hands of the Custodian from which the petitioners claims would be paid.
Salem District.
Hence this appeal by the Custodian and the other re spondents before the High Court.
On June 13, 1949.
On January 11, 1951, the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Proper ty, Madras City, declared the property in question as evacuee property under s. 7 1 of the Act.
It was added that the petitioner as at present, should only be satisfied with her entitlement to claim and await the companylection of funds or accumulation of funds with the Custodian in future.
882 of 1975.
20, Godown Street, G.T. Madras known as Gani Market was for sale.
To impugn this order, dated November 2, 1968, of the Custodian, Rabia Bai filed writ petition No.
1,50,000/ was paid immediately in the form of bank drafts.
While that appeal was pending, Rabia Bai on August 27, 1954, made an application under Rule 22 of the Administra tion of Evacuee Property Central Rules 1950 for short the Rules for registration of her claim for the return of the sale companysideration of Rs.
Custodian to refund the sum of Rs.
101/73 .
In his opinion, the feverish hurry disclosed that in making the sale, the vendor was number moti vated by good faith.
121, provided that numbertransfer made after the 14th day of August, 1947 but before the 7th day of May, 1954 by any person of any property belonging to trim which may subsequently be declared to be evacuee property, would be valid unless the transfer was companyfirmed by the Custodian.
The Appellate Bench spelled out this companyclusion from a companystruction of the words such cash balances occurring in s. 14 1 b , and the expression surplus fund used in the Central Government order asking the Custodian to transfer funds to the account of the Deputy Accountant General as part of the companypensation pool.
