Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |    

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal, Criticizes State's Action in Evacuee Property Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in a dispute over the status of an evacuee property. The judgment delivered on July 19, 2023, brought attention to the State's actions and its repercussions.

The case (Civil Appeal No. 6168 of 2016), titled "State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Meer Baksh & Ors.", revolved around the property held by Sultan Mohammad, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents. The appellant-State contended that the property was an evacuee property as per Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, claiming that Sultan Mohammad was an evacuee under Section 2(d) of the same Act.

However, the Court highlighted an essential aspect in its judgment, stating, "After having perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find the learned Judge has held that it was categorically admitted by the State in its reply that the said Sultan Mohammad never left for Pakistan." This admission was crucial as it established that Sultan Mohammad had never left India, making him ineligible to be considered an evacuee under the 1950 Act.

Despite the undisputed position and a candid concession made by Mr. V.S. Chauhan, the learned Additional Advocate General representing the State, the appellant-State chose to appeal against the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court was not oblivious to the State's stance and disapproved of the decision, emphasizing that such actions must be deprecated.

Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, affirming that the property held by Sultan Mohammad was not an evacuee property under the 1950 Act due to his continued residence in India until his passing. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant-State, directing them to pay the amount to the Writ Petitioners before the High Court within two months.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of transparency and adherence to legal principles. The Court's reprimand against the State's unwarranted appeal underscores the importance of responsible legal action and its impact on the judicial system.

 

Date of Decision: July 19, 2023

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. vs MEER BAKSH & ORS.

Similar News