The State of Madras vs Sheriff Mohammed and others

This appeal arises from an order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, declining to excuse the delay in the presentation of an application by

the Government as representing an evacuee, for payment out of certain moneys under S. 42 of the Estates Abolition Act. A sum of money was

deposited with the Tribunal as advance compensation. One Sheriff Mohamed was the landholder. He was indebted to one Shazadi Begum who

has migrated to Pakistan and is an evacuee within the meaning of Central Act XXXI of 1950. Under S. 8 of that enactment, all properties declared

to be evacuee property under S. 7 shall be deemed to have vested in the Custodian for the State. The liability of Sheriff Mohamed to Shazadi

Begum can certainly be taken to be an evacuee property which vested in the Government. Unfortunately, the Government, representing the

Custodian of Evacuee Property, did not apply within six months from the date, on which the compensation amount was deposited, for payment out

under the provisions of S. 42. Long thereafter, it filed an application for the purpose, and also applied for excusing the delay in making the

application. The Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that it had no power to excuse the delay on the part of a representative of the

creditor. The terms of S. 42 itself make it clear that the power to condone the delay was limited. Sub-S. 2 says that every claim against the

compensation which is not made to the Tribunal within the time aforesaid shall cease to be enforceable. The effect of this provision will be that the

claim of the creditor, viz., Shazadi Begum, whose interests have now vested in the Government, bad ceased to be enforceable after the lapse of

time by reason of the provisions of S. 42. The section also states that the remedy against the compensation amount alone had ceased to be

enforceable. Therefore the denial of payment out of compensation amount will not preclude the Custodian or the Government from proceeding

against the debtor under the appropriate provision of the law. We are of opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction in the

circumstances of the case to excuse the delay and direct payment of the amount under S. 42 to the Government representing the interests of the

evacuee is correct. The appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Before concluding, we must express our obligations to

Mr. R. Ramachandran, who appeared as amicus curiae for the fourth respondent, on whose behalf no appearance bad been entered in this Court.