Hussaini Begum vs State of Hyderabad

The brief facts as set out in the application for the issue of a writ are that one Hussaini Begum leased out the property in question to one Hadi Ali in 1355 Fasli and later on this house was occupied by one Sajjad Hussain. In the meantime Hadi Ali left for Pakistan. Immediately the Custodian issued notice to Sajjad Hussain who was in occupation of the house for the determination of the question whether Hadi Ali had any tenancy rights, and if so whether they vested in the Custodian. Nobody appeared before the Custodian in response to the above notice and he therefore on 14th December 1950 declared the tenancy rights of Hadi Ali as having vested in the Custodian. It is stated that the Custodian thereafter allotted the house to another person. After it was allotted the owner with the connivance of another person, it is stated, broke open the lock and occupied the house. The owner applied to the Custodian for a stay of the order of the Custodian of 14th December 1950. It is stated that he directed that status-quo be maintained, that is to say, the owner who had occupied it was asked to vacate the house and the allottee to whom it had been allotted not to occupy the house. The owner refused to abide by this order. In the meantime she applied for a writ to this Court and obtained a stay order.

On going through the record we find that in this case notice has been issued only to Sajjad Hussain the person who was in occupation of the house. We are of opinion that notice should have been taken to the persons interested and in this case the notice should have gone to the owner of the house also. In a case before the Bombay High Court, reported in Abdul Majid Haji Mahomed Vs. P.R. Nayak, , it was held that the purpose of the notice u/s 7 is to decide the question as to whether a person could be declared an evacuee and his property declared evacuee property and for this purpose an enquiry into such matters as the circumstances of the case permit, should be held. From a perusal of the order of the Custodian, dated 14th December 1950, it looks as though no enquiry was made in the matter as contemplated by the Section. The order as it stands shows that the tenancy right of Hadi Ali was declared Evacuee Property because nobody appeared and made any representation. We are of opinion that having regard to the facts of this case the enquiry was not complete and adequate. The Custodian or the Deputy Custodian as the case may be ought to make further enquiry. Shri Sastri has not been able to show us what enquiry was made by the Department.

Under the circumstances we direct that notice be taken out to the petitioner, the owner and further investigation made. The case is remanded to the Custodian, for further enquiry as contemplated by Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and disposal according to law. Costs will abide the result.