2011 (5) TMI 906 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns High Court ruling on Evacuee Property Act, emphasizes finality of judicial decisions

Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Versus M. Prabhakar & Ors

Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Versus M. Prabhakar & Ors - 2011 AIR 2161, 2011 (7) SCR 468, 2011 (5) SCC 607, 2011 (5) JT 494, 2011 (5) SCALE 423 Issues Involved:1. Delay and Laches2. Finality of the Judgment in W.P. No. 1051 of 19663. Whether the lands are evacuee property under the Evacuee Property Act4. Effect of the notification under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons Act5. High Court's jurisdiction to go into facts under Article 226Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Delay and Laches:The court emphasized that delay and laches are critical factors when exercising discretionary power under Article 226. The respondents failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their delay in asserting their rights. The court highlighted that mere representations to authorities do not justify the delay. The High Court overlooked this significant factor, which was a ground for refusing relief. The court concluded that the unexplained delay of nearly 15 years from the notification under the Evacuee Property Act justified the rejection of the writ petition.2. Finality of the Judgment in W.P. No. 1051 of 1966:The court noted that the judgment in W.P. No. 1051 of 1966, which dismissed the petition challenging the notification under the Evacuee Property Act, had attained finality. This judgment was binding on the authorities and the parties. The High Court erred in entertaining a subsequent writ petition on the same issue, leading to confusion and inconvenience. The court emphasized that the judgment should be read as a whole and understood in its context, affirming that the dismissal was not only due to the non-exhaustion of alternate remedies but also due to the belated challenge.3. Whether the lands are evacuee property under the Evacuee Property Act:The court found that the High Court's determination that the notification under Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act was invalid was incorrect. The High Court's conclusion that the mandatory procedures were not followed was unsupported by records. The court held that the burden of proof was on the petitioners to prove their title, which they failed to do. The notification declaring the lands as evacuee property was valid, and the High Court's findings were based on insufficient evidence.4. Effect of the notification under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons Act:The court held that once a notification under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons Act is issued, the property ceases to be evacuee property and vests absolutely in the Central Government. This divests the Custodian of any power under the Evacuee Property Act. The court affirmed that the notification under Section 12 was valid, and the disputed lands had vested in the Central Government, losing their evacuee status.5. High Court's jurisdiction to go into facts under Article 226:The court acknowledged that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain petitions involving disputed facts, especially when there is a statutory bar on civil suits. However, it criticized the High Court for delving into factual determinations without adequate records. The court emphasized that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition given the inordinate delay and the finality of the previous judgment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment in W.P. No. 17222 of 1990. The notification dated 11.12.1952 under the Evacuee Property Act was held valid, and the lands, having been acquired under the Displaced Persons Act, vested in the Central Government. The Chief Settlement Commissioner's order was deemed without jurisdiction. The court emphasized the importance of addressing delay and respecting the finality of judicial decisions.