KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the second appeal: -

(2.) WHETHER the vesting in the property took place automatically by virtue of the East Punjab (Evacuee Administration of Property) Act, 1947 and the subsequent enactments as contended by the defendant by operation of statute without any further act on its part?

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that even if the property was vested under the 1947 Act, the vesting was to take place for the purpose of the exercise of the powers granted under the Act. The scheme of the Act provides for the Government to take possession of the property through the procedure established under Section 6 and a power to carry on enquiry with reference to persons, who had been laying claim over the property which is taken possession of by the State. In this case, since the Government had not taken possession of the property from the plaintiff and had allowed the plaintiff to continue in possession, the vesting did not take place for carrying out any action under the Act. The counsel would argue that Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 contemplates a vesting only on issuing a notification and since the notification was not shown to have been issued, there have been no vesting at all.