2008 (7) TMI 1075 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Vesting of property as Evacuee Property.
2. Validity of auction and sale certificate.
3. Claims of tenancy and Zamindari rights.
4. Allegations of fraud and suppression of facts.
5. Jurisdiction and procedural compliance.

Summary:

1. Vesting of Property as Evacuee Property:
The disputed property, Khasra No. 519, village Surjepur, Agra, was declared as evacuee property after Abdul Wahid migrated to Pakistan in 1947-48. It vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Properties u/s Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, later replaced by the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.

2. Validity of Auction and Sale Certificate:
The property was auctioned in 1955 under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1955, and sold to Tuljaram. Harnath Chaturvedi challenged the auction, claiming tenancy rights, but his appeals were rejected. The High Court found the orders dated 11.11.1982 and 18.11.1982, which transferred the property to Gulab Chand Mittal, to be mala fide, arbitrary, and invalid, thus canceling them.

3. Claims of Tenancy and Zamindari Rights:
Harnath Chaturvedi claimed hereditary tenancy rights over part of the land, which was initially rejected but later accepted for two bighas ten biswas. He sought transfer of Zamindari rights, which was granted in 1972. The High Court noted that the orders from 1969, 1972, and 1973 regarding these claims were not challenged and thus did not consider their legality.

4. Allegations of Fraud and Suppression of Facts:
The Supreme Court emphasized that fraud vitiates all transactions. It was noted that there was suppression of factual positions and potential fraud in the application moved in 1982 without granting an opportunity to Tuljaram. The Court cited various precedents to highlight the seriousness of fraud and its impact on legal proceedings.

5. Jurisdiction and Procedural Compliance:
The High Court and Supreme Court scrutinized the procedural aspects, noting that the Custodian's actions lacked proper approval and did not follow the required tender process. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that the orders were without jurisdiction and that the procedural lapses rendered the subsequent actions null and void.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, supporting the High Court's decision to cancel the orders dated 11.11.1982 and 18.11.1982, and emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the impact of fraud on legal proceedings. No costs were ordered.