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

Custodian General Of Evacuee Versus Harnam Singh

Custodian General Of Evacuee Versus Harnam Singh - AIR 1957 PH 58 Issues:
1. Whether the Custodian of Evacuee Property can assess damages for use and occupation of property and recover them as arrears of land revenue under Section 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.

Comprehensive Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the assessment and recovery of damages for the use and occupation of a flour mill property by the petitioner, as directed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The petitioner contested the demand for payment issued under Section 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.
2. The petitioner's appeal against the demand for payment was based on the argument that disputes between the parties should have been referred to an independent tribunal for resolution, rather than being determined solely by the Custodian. The petitioner denied liability and questioned the authority of the Custodian to issue the writ of demand.
3. The interpretation of Section 48 of the Act was crucial in this case. The section allows for the recovery of sums due to the State Government or Custodian as arrears of land revenue, with the decision of the Custodian on the sum payable being final. However, the term "due" was analyzed to mean legally enforceable debts or obligations.
4. The Court deliberated on whether the Custodian had the unilateral authority to decide the amount due and enforce its collection, or if genuine disputes between the parties required adjudication by a civil court. The petitioner argued that disputes regarding liability, tenancy, occupation period, compensation rate, and machinery removal should be resolved by an impartial tribunal.
5. The Court emphasized the fundamental principle that individuals have the right to seek redress through the courts for disputes and injuries. It highlighted the jurisdiction of civil courts to adjudicate on justiciable controversies and protect the rights of citizens, indicating that the Act did not intend to oust the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
6. Ultimately, the Court held that since the amount demanded from the petitioner was not proven to be legally recoverable under the Act and was subject to genuine disputes, the Custodian lacked the authority to unilaterally issue a writ of demand. The decision upheld the petitioner's position and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity of judicial oversight in resolving contentious matters.

Judges:
- Chief Justice Bhandari
- Justice Bishan Narain