TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Custodian-General could entertain the State's revision under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 notwithstanding delay and the finality attached to the earlier order under the repealed law; (ii) Whether the proceedings before the Custodian-General were vitiated for breach of natural justice in admitting and acting upon fresh material without affording the appellants an effective opportunity to meet it.
Issue (i): Whether the Custodian-General could entertain the State's revision under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 notwithstanding delay and the finality attached to the earlier order under the repealed law.
Analysis: Section 27 conferred revisional power without prescribing any period of limitation, and the exercise of that power was a matter within the Custodian-General's discretion. The earlier notification and order made under the evacuee property regime were brought within the later Act by the deeming and saving provisions, especially Section 58(3), which treated acts done under the repealed law as acts done under the Act as if it had been in force on the relevant date. The Court rejected the contention that the finality attached to the earlier order under the repealed ordinance prevented the revisional authority from acting under the later Act. The fiction created by the statute was held to operate fully, and could not be cut down by implying a reservation not expressed by Parliament.
Conclusion: The revision was competent and the Custodian-General had jurisdiction to entertain it.
Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings before the Custodian-General were vitiated for breach of natural justice in admitting and acting upon fresh material without affording the appellants an effective opportunity to meet it.
Analysis: The revisional proceeding was decided on material not shown to have been properly proved before the Custodian-General, and the appellants were not given a fair opportunity to meet the fresh evidence or adduce rebuttal evidence. Although additional evidence may be admitted in appropriate cases under Rule 31(9) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Central Rules, 1950, that power must be exercised judicially and consistent with fair hearing. The record disclosed serious procedural irregularity, lack of disclosure of the evidence relied upon, and denial of a meaningful chance to rebut the State's case.
Conclusion: The proceedings were vitiated by breach of natural justice and the order could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Custodian-General for a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving both sides a proper opportunity to lead evidence and be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a legal fiction deeming earlier acts to have been done under the repealing Act, the revisional and appellate powers under the later Act may attach to those acts unless the statute clearly excludes that result; and any revisional decision reached on unproved material without a fair opportunity of rebuttal is invalid for breach of natural justice.
TaxTMI 
