HAJI SIDDIK HAJI UMAR & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 249

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, R.B. MISRA

Case summary

In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint, it was alleged that the order passed by the Custodian on June 2, 1950 wa·; b1d in law and the rejection of the petition by the Custodian General on August 9, 1950 and the refusal by the Government of India to grant the certificate under...

Judgment text

HAJJ SIDDIK HAJI UMAR & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA Jam1ary 18, 1983 (A. P. SEN, B. S. VBNKATARAMIAH AND R. B. MISRA, JJ. J Admi•istratlon of Evacuee Property Act, 1950-Sub·•· (2A) of•· 8 and ss. 28 and 46-Property taken over as evacuee property under any repealed law- Sub-s. (2A) ;of" 8 operates even Ifthere Is no defect in pr1viou1 law and cures all defects I• taking over-81. 28 and 46 bar jurisdiction ofcivil court to lnterf1re in any matter dttermined by Custodian General or Custodian. Sub s. (2A) of s. 8 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 19SO states that all property which under •Ill' law repealed by the Act purports to have vested as evacuee property in any person exercising the powers of Custodian in any State shall, notwithstatiding any defect in, or the invalidity of such law or any judgment.

decree or order of any Court be deemed for all purposes to have validly vested in that person, as if the provisions of such law bad been enacted by-Parliament and such property shall, on the commencement of the Act, be deemed to have been evacuee· property declared as such within the meaning of the Act and accordingly, any order made or other action taken by ! he Custodian or, any other authority in relation to Such property shall be deemed to have been validly and lawfully made or taken. The properties whicJt were the subject matter of the suit from which this appeal arose were situate in the erstwhile State of Junagadh and belonged to one Haii Umar Kasam who had sailed from Bombay on October 8, 1947 on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

On May 1, 1948 a notice in respect of these properties was issued under tho Junagadh State Evacuo• (Administration of Property) Act XII of 1948 but it was withdrawn on May 31, 1948 on receipt of a reply from bis son that he had not gone away from Junagadh out of fear of civjl distur.. bances but in fact had gone on Haj and was expected to return shortly. Since he did not return till September, 1948 the Custodian took possession of the suit ·properties. Thereafter the territory of Junagadh became -intearated with. the United States of Saurashtra and the Junagadh Act was repealed by a Saurashtra -Ordinance which in turn was repealed by a Central Ordinance. The Administra· tion of Evacuee Property Act, 19SO replaced the Central Ordinance. An orde. r declaring Haji Umar Kasam as an evacuee was issued on May 20, 1949 by! tho Custodian purporting to act under tho Junagadh Act.

Tho appeal filed against this order before the District Judge, Junagadh was transferred by him"to the High Court of Saurashtra which in tum sent the same to the CostodiaQ qf i;aurashtra for disposal. H•ii Umar Kasam returned to lndi~ [1983] 2 s. c. R. . ' during the pondency of that appeal aJld·filed a petition under the provisions of the Central Ordinance-which had come into force by then-before the Custodian General requesting him to transfer the appeal to his file for disposal. Before this petition could be heard, the appeal was dismissed by the Custodian of Saurashtra on June 21 1950. A revision filed against this order was dismissed on August 9, 1950 by the Custodian G:neral along with the petition for transfer of the appeal which had been filed earlier, Haji Umar Kasam's application under s. 16 of the Central Ordinance for restoration of his property was also turned down when the Central Government deciioed to grant the certificate contemplated under the proviso to sllb-s.

(I) thereof on the ground that, contrary to his claim that he had gone to Mecca and stayed there, there was evidence suggesting that he must have been in Karachi for a major part of the period during which he was away from India. A notification was also issued in respect of the suit properties under s. 12 of the J)isplaced Persons (ComPensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The heirs and legal representati1,es of Haji Umar K. asam filed the suit contending that he was not an evacuee; pthat the taking over of possession of the properties after the withdrawal of the: notice on May 31; 1948 without issuing further notice was illegal; that an order directing restoration of the properties to Haji Umar Kasam had been passed o•n March 1, 1949 and therefore the order of May 20~ J949 declaring him an evaLcuee· without issuing notice or holding an inquiry was illegal; and that the orders passed by the Custodian and the Custodian Gec..

,,ral on June 2, 1950 and August 9, 1950 respectively as well as the refusal by the Government of India to grant t. he certificate under s. 16 were all contrary to law, The Union of India which contested the suit did not deny that an order was made on March 1, 1949 as stated above but pleaded that the order dated May 20, 1949 had been passed in acr. ordance with Jaw after making necessary inquiry at which the plaintiffs had be:en given sufficient opportunity to prove that Haji Umar Kasam was not an evacuee. It . Placed reliance on the order passed on the application made under s. 16 and the notification issued uilder s. 12 of tbe Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and on s. 46 which barred the jurisdiction of the civil ·court to decide the questions raised in the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit aad the appeal against its dismissal was rejected by the High Court.

On the question relating to the existence of the order of March 1, 1949 directing the restoration of properties of Haji Umar Kksam, while the trial court was of the: view that tbere was no such order, the High Court held that such an order had been made. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : Sub-s. (2A) of s. 8 operates even if there is no defect in any previous law under which action is taken and cures all defects, if any, in the taking over of the properties as evacuee properties. The words "notwithstatiding any defect io or ! he i validiry of, such law or any judgment, decree 9r order of any / HAJJ SIDDIK V. UNION 2Sl Court" found in this sub-~ection do not cut down the operation or the elm words of the sub-section which validate the vesting of any property which purports to have vested as evacuee property even if there was any irregularity in the. procedure. The non-obstante clause referred to above is not intended to whittle down the operation of sub-s. (2A) of s. 8.

It is introduced only orit o( abundant caution. In the context in which thiS sub-section appears it is not correct to hold that it would operate Only where there is any defect in or invalidity of any previous law or where there is any judgment, decree or order of any 8 court to the contrary. [267 A·B] The Dominion of India & Anr. v. Shrinbai A. Irani &'Anr. • [195S] 1 S. C. R. 296; Azeemunnisa & 6rs. v. The _Deputy Custodian Evacuee Propertie1, District Dtorio & Ors. , [1961] 2 S. C. R. 91 and M/s. Hail Esmai/ Noor Mohammtd & Co. & Ors. v. The Competent Officer, Lucknow & Ors, [1967] 3 S. C. R. 134, referred to. ' Ahmedbhai Ahdulkadar & Ors. v. The Custodia. ,, ofEvacuee Property and Regional Settletnent Commissioner, Bombay & Ors. , A. LR. 1971Gujarat181, approved. Jo the instant case it cannot be disputed that the suit properties bad been taken over under the Junagadb Act as evacuee properties in September. 1948 and had continu.

e_d to be in the possession of the Custodian till the Act was passed and therefore it is not possible to hold that they were not evacuee properties. [268 H, 269 A] (ii) Whereas under s. 7 of the Act ao enquiry had to precede the declaration that a property was an evacuee property, under the Junagadh Act no such enquiry was ·contemplated. The Custodian was required by s. ' 7 of that Act to take possession of any property which bad been Ieft in Junagadh by ao evacuee. The suit properties had been taken over as evacuee properties in September, 1948 because Haji Umar Kasam had not returned to Junagadh for over one }ear. Such taking over was an administrative act. By reason of the combined effect of ss. 4 aud 16 (IJ of the Junagadb. Act the properties continued to be vested in the Custodian. The order dated March 1, 1949 under which it is· claimed that the properties were ordered to be returned bas not been produ~d.

Even if such an order was there unless it is shown that such an order had been passed by the State Government aod published in the Official Gazette, the suit properties would not cease to be evacuee ·properties. By virtue of s. 5 of the SauraShtra Ordinance the,Y became vested in the Custodian of Saurasht ra and by ·vir1ue of s. 8 (2) of tbe Central Orrlinance they became vested in the Custodian appointed under that Ordinance. All properties vested under the Central Ordinance became evacuee property in the hands of the Custodian appointed under the Act by virtue of sub·ss. (2) and (21\) of s. 8. Any doubt that existed about the vesting of the properties in the Custodian under the Act as evacuee property was removed by enacting sub·s. (2A) of s. 8with retrospective effect. [26 lE-H, 262 1\-E, 266 B·Fl Jf (iii) It is only after the Central Ordinance came into force that Haji Umar ~asam preferred bis petition for restoration of bis pro\'"rties lll,lder s.

16 (I) of 252 SUPREME COUBT REPORTS [1983) 2 s. c. li. · that Ordinance, and a1so applied for a certificate as per proviso to that suh�section to the Government of India. Again it is only after the -Act came into force replacing the Central Ordinance that the Custodian General disposed of the . J)etition for_ transfer of the appeal pending before the Custodian of Saurashtra and the revi$ion petition filed against his order dated June 2, 1950. The effect of these proceedings have to be considered in the light of the provisions of thi Act. . [263 Q. H, 264 A-BJ (iv} Section 28 bars the jurhdictiJn oi any C {:ic�,1 Persons (COmpea)ation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 the right, title or interest vest;:d ofHaji Umar K1sa1n in the suit propertie' becam� cx:iiaguished and the� absolutely i. Q. the Central Government free fr0rn all encumbrances by virtue of D, )2 (2) oftbat Act. (270 D-E] Basant Ram v. Union ofIndia, [1962] Supp. 2 S. C. R. 733, referred to. , CIVIL APPELLATE JIJ�ISDl!

;;flON : Civil Appeal No. 2279 of 1970. • HA11 SIDDJK v. UNION (Vetikataramiah, J. ) 253 From the Judgment and Decree dated the 28th/29th July, 1970 of the Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No. 438 ·of 1962. . : T. U. Mehta and R. P. Kapoor for the Appellant. P. A. Francis, S. N. Chaudhary and R. N. Poddar for the 8 Respondent. · R. N. Sachthey for the Intervener. -,--. ; R. H. Dhebar for the Intervener. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal by certificate is filed against the judgment and decree dated July 29, 1970 passed° by the High Court of Gujarat in First Appeal No. 438 of 1962 affirming th¥ judgment and decree dated August 27, 1962 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 254 of 1959 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of the properties mentioned in Schedule-I attached to the plaint and for damages and other reliefs against the Union of India.

The properties ·in question which are situated · in the area ~ which formed part of the former princely State of Junagadh originally belonged to one Haji Umar Kasam, a resident of Junagadh who died on May 22, 1956. The plaintiffs are his heirs and legal representatives. - --..... The Nawab of Junagadh accepted the accession of his State to Pakistan on August 13, 1947. On September 23, 1947 Haji Umar Kasam left Junagadh for Haj and sailed from Boinbay by "S. S. Akbar" on October 8, 1947. On October 24, 1947, the Nawab of Junagadh fled to Pakistan. The State of Junagadh was taken over by its people and a Council of Administration was set up to administer it. Thereafter the State acceded to India. On February 13, 1948 Junagadh State Evacuee (Administration of • Property) Act XII of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Junagadh Act') was enacted. It provided for the administration of the ... properties belonging to evacuees.

Under that Act the expression 'evacuee' was defined as a person ordinarily resident in or owning ·property or carrying on business in any village or town within the. I Junagadh State who had on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances left that village or town and did not personally occupy or supervise his property or business. All property in which an evacuee had any right or interest other than any moveable property in his immediate physical possession which was called 'evacuee property' situated within the Junagadh State came to be vested in the Custodian appointed for the purpose of that Act and was directed to continue to be so vested until the Junagadh State Government by notification otherwise directed. There were detailed provisions in that Act relating to the managment of evacuee properties.

Section 16 (1) of that Act however provided that on being satisfied that evacuees had returned or were returning to the Junagadh State, the Junagadh State Government might by notification in the State Gazette authorise return of tbe ' ' property to the owners in accordance with the aforesaid section 16. Any person claiming to be entitled to any such property c. ould apply in writing to the. Custodian who had after giving public notice to hold a summary enquiry into the claim and to pass a formal order declaring the person to whom the possession of the property might be delivered. A notice was issued by the Assistant-Custodian who also exercised certain specified powers of the Custodian under the Junagadb Act on May 1, 1948 in respect of the properties of Haji Umar Kasam as be had not returned to Junagadb and was away for more than · six months.

On May 5, 1948 his son Haji Mohamed Siddik Haji Umar sent a reply to that notice stating that his rather Haji Umar Kasatn had not gone away from Junagadh out of fear of Civil disturbances; that he bad gone on 'Haj'; that all his heirs were living in Junagadh and that he Was returning shortly and therefore his properties might not be treated as evacuee properties. No specific reason was, however, given in the said reply F , for the long delay in the return of Haji Kasam. On receipt of bis reply that notice was withdrawn on May 31, 1948. Since Haji Umar Kasam had not returned till September, 1948 the possession of the suit properties was taken by the Custodian between September 23, 1948 and October I, 1948 as evacuee properties. By · the Saurashtra Ordinance III of 1949, the territory of the Junagadh State was integrated with the United States of Saurashtra. It is • alleged.

that by an order dated March 1, 1949 Haji Umar Kasam was declared to be a non-evacuee and the foe factory, one of the r suit properties, was ordered to be returned to hi, sons. This fact is disputed by the Union of India although the High Court of Gujarat has held that there was such an order. The possession of • HAJI SIDDIK v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J. ) 2ss the ice factory was not, however, returned. It continued to be with the Custodian. But again on May 20, 1949, the Custodian purporting to exercise his power under the Junagadh Act treated Haji Umar Kasam as an evacuee and directed that his ice factory should be taken possession of as an evacuee property. The ice factory was leased out by the State Government in favour of a refugee called Suraji Krishan Nandlal Chowdhary in May, 1949. Since Haji Umar Kasam had not yet returned to India, his sons filed an appeal in July, 1949 before the District Judge, Junagadh against the order deClaring him as an evacuee.

On August 4, 1949 the Saurashtra Ordinance . XLIII of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Saurashtra Ordinance') was passed repealing the Junagadh Act and under that Ordinance the properties vested in the Custodian under . the Junagadh Act came to be vested in the Custodian or the United States of Saurashtra. This Ordinance was repealed and replaced· by the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Central. Ordinance') which applied also to all the acceding States except Cooch-Behar, Manipur and Tripura with effect from October 18, 1949. The Central Ordinance was repealed and replaced by the Administration of Evacuee r Property Act, 1950 (Act XXXI of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which came into force on April 17, 1950. Haji Umar Kasam returned to India on December 23, 1949 after the Central Ordinance had come into force. ..

' Now reverting to the appeal· preferred by the sons of Haji Kasam filed in July, 1949 before the District Judge, Junagadh it is seen that the said appeal was transferred by the District Judge to the High Court of Saurashtra State without deciding it. The High Court in its turn as per its order dated March 22, 1950 sent the appeal to the Custodian of Evacuee Property of Saurashtra . ' on · a joint submission made by the counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the counsel for the Cnstodian with which the High Court agreed. When the said appeal was pending before the Custodian, a petition purporting to be under sub-section (2) of section 6 and section 27 of the Central Ordinance was presented by Haji Umar Kasam himself to the Custodian General of Evacuee Pro;ierty requesting him to withdraw the appeal to his file and to dispose it of. That petition dated April 17, 1950 was actually presented on April 19, 1950. Before the above. petiti? n .

could be heard by the Custodian General; the Custodian d1sm1ssed the appeal on June 2, 1~50 on two grounds viz. (i) that the appeal had I 256 SUPREME COURT REPOR11 been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation and (ii) that Haji Umar Kasam having left the Junagadh State limits after August 15, J947 and having not returned ! >y the ti me the order :>-under appe&I was passed i. e. May 20, 1949 he had been rightly treated as an evacuee. n Against the order ,passed by th1i Custodian on the appeal on June 2, 1950 a revision petition was filed before the Custodian General under section 27 of the Act. The Custodian General took up for consideration the petition filed on April 19, 1950 requesting him to withdraw the appeal tl\en pending before. the Custodian and the revision petition filed against the order passed in appeal by the Custodian together. After hearing the counsel for Haji Umar Kasarn the Custodian General disposed them of by ' - ,.

October 18, 1949 and those passed after the Central Ordinance came into force. We shall first deal with the orders passed prior to the coming Jn to force of the 1I:Ordinance. It is now necessary to conside( HAJJ SIDDIK v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J. ) 261 the provisions of the Junagadh Act which came into force on February 13, 1948. It did not provide for any enquiry before treating any property as evacuee property. Section 2 (b) of the Junagadh Act defined the term 'evacuee' and section 2 (c) defined the term 'evacuee property' as all property in which an evacuee had any right or interest. The object of the Junagadb Act was to make provision for the preservation and the management of evacuee properties. Section 4 of that Act provided that an evacue~ property situated. within the Junagadh State would vest in the Custodian for the purpose of that Act and would continue to be so vested until the Junagadh State Government by notification otherwise directed.

Section 7 of that Act required the Custodian to take possession of all evacuee properties. Section 8 of that Act provided for an enquiry by the Custodian into the claims of any person in respect of property taken possession of by him as evacuee property. If the Custodian was satisfied that the claimant had any right to it, he had to give effect to it. But if he rejected the claim, the aggrieved party could file an appeal before t'. 1e High Court. Section 16 (I) of that Act empowered the Junagadb State· Government by notification in the State Gazette io authorise the return of any evacuee property on being satisfied that the concerned evacuee bad re'. urned or was returning to the. State of J1magadh after holding an enquiry into the title of'such evacuee to the property . in question. It is thus clear that the pattern of the provisions of the Junagadh Act was different from the provisions of the Act.

Whereas under section 7 of the Act M enquiry had to precede the declaration that a property was an evacuee property under the Junagadh Act no such ·enquiry was contemplated. But the provisions of the Junagadh Act did not:iallow any unjust results to follow. The Custodian was required to take possession of any property which had been left in Junagad h by an . evacuee and to preserve and manage it until the evacuee returned and on his return the possession was to be restored to him. There was no violation of any principles of natural justice as such involved in the process. Oa )he other hand it provided for a machinery for preventiqg the properties of evacuees being occu• pied by trespassers and for their preservation. JTh - x "8. Vesting of evacue~ prop~rty in the Custo:lian. (! ) ................................................

1 (2) Where immediately before the commencement of this Act, any property in a State bad vested as evacuee ' property in any person exercising the powers of Custodian under any law repeakd hereby the property shall, on the commencement of this Act, be deemed to be evacuee property declared as such within the meaning of this Act and shall be deemed to have vested in the Custodian appointed or deemed to have been appointed for the State under this Act, and shall continue to so vest : ' Provided that where at the commencement of this Act • there is pending befo:re the High Court, the Custodian or any other authority for or in any State any proceeding under section 8 or s1ection 30 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (XII of 1949), or uoder any other corresponding law repealed by the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, _194'1 (XXVII of 1949), then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, such proceeding shall be disposed of as if the definitions of 'evacuee property' and 'evacue~' contained in section 2.

Qf this. Act had be-. come applicable thereto. -~ l! AJI S! DDIK v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J. ) 265. (2A) Without prejudice to the generality of the provi· sions contained in sub-section (2), all property which under any law repealed hereby purports to have vested as evacuee property in any person exercising the powers of Custodian in any State shall, notwithstanding any defect in, or the invalidity of, such law or any judgment, decree or order of any court, be deemed for all purposes to have validly vested in that person, as if the provisions of such law had been enacted by Parliament and such property shall, on the commencement of this Act, be deemed to have· been evacuee property declared as such within the meaning . of this Act and accordingly, any order made or other action taken by the Custodian or, any other autho· ' rity in relation to such property shall be deemed to have been validly and lawfully made or taken. 28.

Finality of orders under this Chapter-Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Chapter, every order made by the Custodian-General, District Judge, Custodian, Additional Custodian, Authorised Deputy Custodian, Deputy Custodian or Assistant Custodian shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court by way of appeal or revision or in any . original suit, application or execution proceeding. 46. Jurisdiction of civil courts . barred in certain matters. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act; no civil or revenue c~urt shall have"jurisdiction- (a) to entertain or a,djudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not evacuee property ; or (b) ................................................................. ..

(c) to question the legality of any action taken by the Custodian-General or the Custodian under this Act; or (d) in respect of any matter which the Custodian- General or the Custodian is empowered by or under Ibis A~t to determine. 58. Repeals and savings-(! ) The Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 and the Hyderabad Administration of Evacuee Property Regulation are hereby repealed. (2) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, there is in force in any State to which this Act extends any law which corresponds to this Act and which is not repealed by sub,section (! ), that corresponding law shall stand repealed.

(3) The repeal by this Act of the Administration of 0 Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, or the Hyderabad Administration of Evacuee Property Regulation or of any corresponding" law shall not affect the previous operation of that Ordinance, Regulation pr corresponding law and subject thereto, anything done or any action taken in the exercise of any power conferred by or under that Ordinance, Regulation or corresponding law, shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act were in force onjthe day on which such thing was done or action was taken. '' ' The effect of the provisions of the Act in so far as this case is concerned may be summarised thus : All properties vested in the Custodian under the Central Ordinance became evacuee property in the hands of the Custodian appointed under the Act by virtue of . sub-sections (2) and (2A) of section 8 of the Act.

Any doubt tliat existed about the vesting of the properties in the C:ustodian under . the Act as evacuee propeny was removed by enacting section 8 (2A) of the Act with retrospective effect. It says that all property which ' under any law repealed by the Act purports to have vested as evacuee property . in auy person exercising the powers of Custodian in any State shall, notwithstanding any defect in or the invalidity of such law or any judgment, decree, order of any court be deemed for all purposes to have validly vested in that person as if the provisions of that law had been enacted by Parliament and such property shall on th~ commencement of the Act be deemed to have been evacuee property declared as such within the meaning of the Act and accordingly any order made or other action taken by the Custodian or any other authority in relation to such property shall be deemed to have been validly and lawfully made or taken. This HAn SIDDIK v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J.

) 267 prov1s1on operates even if there is no defect in any previous law under which action is taken and cures all defects, if any, in the taking over of the properties as evacuee properties. The words 'notwithstanding any defect in or the invalidity of, such law or . any Judgment, decree, or order of any court' found in sub-section (2A) of section 8 of the Act do not cut down the operation of the clear WGrds of that sub-~ection which B. validate the vesting of any property which purports to ·have vested ·• as evacuee property even if there was any· irregularity in the procedure. The non-obstante clause referred to above is not intended to whittle down the operation of sub-section (2A) of section 8. It is introduced only out of abundant caution.

Omitting the non-obstante c· clause, sub-section (2A) of section 8 would read : •• "without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (2), all property which under any law repealed purports to have vested as evacuee property in any person exercising the powers of Custodian in any State shall be deemed for all purposes to have validly vested in that person.................................. " r In the context in which. sub-section (2A) of section 8 of the l• Act appears, it is not, therefore, correct to hold that sub-section (2A) would operate only where there is any defect in or invalidity of any previous law or where there is any judgment, decree or order of any court to the contrary. ·This view receives support from the rule of construction adopted by this . Court in The Dominion of India 1 &'. Anr. v. Shrinbai A. Irani & Anr.

( ) The High Court of Gujarat also has taken the same view of sub-section (2A) of section 8 of the Act in Ahmedbhai Abdulkadar & Ors. v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property and Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay & Ors. (') Dealing with this provision, this Court observed in Azimunissa,& Ors. v. The Deputy Custodian Evacuee Properties, District Deoria & Ors. (') at pages 103-104 thus: "The word "purport" bas many shades of meaning. It means fictitious, what[appears on the face of the instrument; the apparent and not the legal import and therefore any act which purports to be done in . exercise of a power is io be deemed to be done within that power notwithstanding Ul [1955] 1 S. C. R. 206. (2) A. I. R. 1971 Guj. 181. (3) [1961] 2 S. C. R. 91, 268 SUPMMB COURT ltEl>OltrS (1983] 2 S. C. R that the power is not exercisable ; Dicker v. Angerstein [1876) 3 Cb. D. 600, 603.

Purporting is, therefore, indicative of what appears on the face of it or is apparent even though in law it may not be so. This means that at the time when tbe Act purported to vest the property in dispute in the Custodian even though the power was not exerchable, s. 8{2A) by giving a retrospective effect to s. 8(2) of the Act makes the vesting as if it was vesting under s. 8 (2) of the Act and therefore the attack on the ground of invalidity f .. cannot be sustained......................................... The effect of s. 8 (2-A) is that what purported to have vested under s. 8 (2) of Ordinance XXVII of 1949 and •• which is to be deemed to be vested under s. 8 of the Act which repealed that Ordinance, notwithstanding any invalidity in the original vesting or any decree or order of the Court shall be deemed to be evacuee property validly vested in the Cu>todian and any order made by the Custodian in relation to the property shall be deemed to be valid.

Thus retrospective effect is given to the Act to validate (I) what purports to be vested -; (2) removes all defects or . ; invalidity in the vesting or fictional vesting under s. 8 (2) of Ordinance XXVII of 1949 or s. 8 (2) of the Act which repealed the Ordi'nance ; (3) makes the decrees and judgments to the contrary of any court in regard to the vesting ineffective ; (4) makes the property evacuee property by its . 4'. _. deeming effect ; and (5) validates all orders passed by the Custodian in regard to th•e property. " Following the above decision, this Court in M/s. Haji Ismail Noor Mohammad & Co. & Ors. v. The Competent Officer, Lucknow & 1 Ors. ( ) held that where vesting of evacuee eroperties had taken place under any corresponding law J? rior to the coming into force of the Central Ordinance and of the Act, no question of making a fresh declaration under section 7 (I) _of the Central Ordinance would arise.

The Court further held that by reason of the deeming provisions in sub-sections (2) and (2A) of section 8 of the Act. there would be automatic vesting of such properties and such a vesting could not be reopened after the Act came into force. In view of tlie foregoing since it cannot be disputed that the suit properties had ff (t) (1967] 3 s. c. R. 134. l HAJI SIDDIK v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J. ) 269 been taken over under the Junagadh Act as evacuee properties in September, 1948 and had continued to be in the po1session of the Custodian till ·the Act was passed, it is not possible to hold that they were not evacuee properties. We are of the view that they have to be dealt with under the Act as evacuee properties which has duly vested in the Custodian under the Act: 8 Section 16 of the Act provides for restoration of evacuee property b)' the Central ,Government. Section 27 of the Act gives power of revision to the.

Custodian General either on his own motion or on application made to him to call for the record of any proceeding in order to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed therein and to pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit. Section 28 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of any Court, of course other than the jurisdiction of the High Court under . Article 226 of the Constitution and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and Article 136 of tire Constitutilln to entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to any order passed by the authorities mentioned therein. Section 46 of the Act which is worded very widely bars the jurisdiction of civil or revenue courts in regard to matters mentioned therein. No such court can entertain any suit or proce~ding in which the question whether any property is or is not evacuee property arises or in which the legality ofAny action taken ·by the Custodian General or Custodian under the Act l! l is questioned.

Any matter which the Custodian General or the Custodian is empowered to determine by or under the Act is also outside the jurisdiction of any such Court. (see Custodian of Evacuee Property Punjab & Ors. v. Jafran Begum(1)). In view of the above provisions, it was not open to the civil court in this case to decide whether the suit properties were evacuee prvperties or not. It was · also not open to it to decide the correctness of the order of the Custodian General dated August 9, 1950 declining to interfere with the order of the Custodian dated June 2, 1950. The question > whether a certificate should have been issued by the Central Government also was by implication barred as it was the Custodian who had to restore the property after holding an enquiry into the title of the evacuee when an application was made to him alongwith a certificate i,ssued by the Central Government and a certificate of that nature by itself would be of no use.

Neither Haji Umar Kasam nor after his death his heirs and legal representatives questioned 6. (l) (1967] 3 S. C. R. 736 ~:---· these orders before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or before the Supreme Court under Article 32 or under Article 136 of the Constitution. They thus became final and were beyond the jurisdiction of the civil court. The decision of this Court in Fazalbhoy Currimbhoy etc. v. 8 Official Trustee of Maharashtra & Ors. etc. (') is of no assistance to the plaintiff since in that case the Court was not concerned ·with any question of law similar to the one whi. ch has arisen for consideration in this case: So is the dedsion of this Court in Dr. Rajendra Pralcasii Sharma v. Gyan Chandra & Ors. (') in which the evacuee concerned migrated to Pakistan in the year 1967 after the insertion of section 7A of the Act.

There is a furth1~r hurdle in this case which bas arisen on account of the publication of the notification under section 12 of the Displaced Peroons (Compensation and Rehabilition) Act, 1954 in respect of the suit properties on June l, 1955. On the publication of such notification, the: right, title or interest of Haji Umar Kasam in the suit properties became extinguished and they vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances by virtue of 3 section 12 (2) of the said Act. (see Basant Ram v. Union of bidia)( ) It is perhaps for this reason that the Central Government could not make any order on the petitions filed by Haji Umar Kasam or bis heirs for restoration of the suit properties to them after the publication of the said notification. In the circumstam:es, the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal before it. · In the result the appeal fails and it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

The plaintiffs are also exonerated from the • liability to pay the costs of the defendant in the trial court. We, ' however, make it clear that the dismissal of this appeal does not bar any other remedy available to the appellants in lal!. H. L. C. Appeal dismissed. (I) [1979] 2 S. C. R. 69! 1. (2) [19SO] 3 S. C. R. 207. (3) [1962] Supp. 2 S. C. R. 733.