1956 (8) TMI 49 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules on Custodian's authority to assess property damages under Administration of Evacuee Property Act

The Court held that the Custodian of Evacuee Property lacked the authority to unilaterally assess and recover damages for property use and occupation ... - ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Custodian of Evacuee Property may assess damages for use and occupation of evacuee property and recover them as arrears of land revenue under Section 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. 2. Whether sums alleged to be due (but not admitted or proved) to the Custodian may be enforced by summary land-revenue recovery proceedings under Section 48, or whether disputed claims require adjudication by an independent court or tribunal. 3. Whether the decision of the Custodian as to sums payable under the Act is final and conclusive for purposes of recovery under Section 48, including in cases involving disputes of fact and mixed questions of law and fact (e.g., existence of tenancy, period of occupation, assessment of compensation, removal of machinery). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Power under Section 48 to recover damages for use and occupation as arrears of land revenue Legal framework: Section 48 provides that any sum due to the State Government or to the Custodian under the Act may be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue and that the decision of the Custodian as to the sum payable shall be final. Precedent treatment: The Court considered authorities recognizing limits on executive officers' power to determine disputed rights (citing prior decisions where Custodian lacked power to determine title, to decide time-bar, or to recover debts where barred by limitation). Interpretation and reasoning: The Court construes 'due' to mean sums legally and enforceably owed - admitted or proved to be due - and holds the summary remedy of Section 48 must be restricted to sums that are legally recoverable. The Act is not a fiscal statute on the model of Income-Tax or Land Revenue law designed to produce State revenue by empowering executive officers to adjudicate disputes; rather it concerns preservation, management and control of evacuee property and does not oust ordinary courts of jurisdiction over contested civil rights. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 48's summary recovery applies only to sums that are legally due (admitted or proved), not to disputed claims. Obiter - analogies to Income-Tax or Land Revenue statutes; characterization of the Act's purpose (though used to support ratio). Conclusions: The Custodian cannot, under Section 48, use summary land-revenue recovery to enforce amounts which are not admitted or proved to be due; damages for use and occupation that are contested fall outside the scope of summary recovery until judicially determined or otherwise established. Issue 2 - Finality of the Custodian's decision under Section 48 and effect on disputes of fact and law Legal framework: Sub-section (2) of Section 48 states that 'the decision of the Custodian as to the sum payable ... shall be final.' Precedent treatment: The Court reviewed earlier rulings applying limits to executive determinations when rights of parties are in dispute and noted authorities rejecting Custodian's competence to decide certain matters (title, limitation, recoverability) as final. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejects the contention that Section 48 authorizes the Custodian to be the sole adjudicator of disputed civil controversies and to enforce contested sums by summary revenue processes. 'Final' in the statutory context does not mean an unchallengeable power to adjudicate disputed factual and legal controversies that properly belong to civil courts. Where liability is disputed (existence of tenancy, period of occupation, rate of compensation, alleged removal of machinery), the Custodian cannot determine those matters and then enforce collection as arrears of land revenue; the summary remedy presupposes a sum that is already due. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Statutory finality of the Custodian's decision under Section 48 does not permit summary recovery of disputed claims; disputes of fact and law require adjudication by competent independent tribunals or courts. Obiter - procedural suggestion that payment under protest and subsequent civil suit (per Land Revenue Act practice) could be a route where applicable. Conclusions: The decision of the Custodian cannot be treated as final and conclusive for purposes of summary recovery where the sum is contested; parties retain access to ordinary courts to have controversies judicially determined. Issue 3 - Scope of 'due' and limits on summary recovery where liability is contested Legal framework: Ordinary definitions of 'due' (owed, legally enforceable) and principles of jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure that courts have cognizance of suits of a civil nature unless barred. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on authority holding that executive officers lack power to determine disputed civil rights when they are personally interested and that ordinary courts must decide justiciable controversies. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasons that 'due' must be interpreted to mean an enforceable obligation - admitted or proved - and that the summary remedy of Section 48 must be limited accordingly. It emphasizes the principle nemo judex in causa sua (one cannot be judge in his own cause) and reiterates that the Administration of Evacuee Property Act does not expressly or impliedly divest courts of jurisdiction to decide disputes between the Custodian and private persons as to liabilities for use and occupation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Sums not admitted or proved to be due cannot be recovered under Section 48's summary land-revenue machinery; courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed claims. Obiter - commentary on the nature and purpose of the Evacuee Property Act versus fiscal statutes. Conclusions: Where liability for compensation or rent is disputed in respect of evacuee property, the Custodian may not invoke Section 48 to compel summary recovery as arrears of land revenue; the dispute must be referred to an independent forum competent to determine the contested questions. Application to the present facts and final disposition Interpretation and reasoning: Applied to the present controversy, the Court finds that material issues were disputed (liability to pay, existence of tenancy, period of occupation, assessment of compensation, alleged removal of machinery) and that the amount demanded was neither admitted nor proved to be due under the Act. Conclusions: The Custodian lacked power to direct issuance of a writ of demand under Section 48 in respect of the sums claimed. The Court upholds the lower court's order restraining summary recovery and dismisses the appeal with costs. The Court is unanimous in this conclusion.