TAR MOHAMMAD AND ORS V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS INSC 368

TAR MOHAMMAD AND ORS V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS INSC 368 "

Background Parties Involved: The appeals involve a firm named M/s Moula Dina Ayub and various appellants who claim tenancy rights on a piece of land. Original Land Ownership: One Mohd. Hasham Abdulla was a partner in the firm that owned 689.28 acres of land in Balapur and Akola Taluk, Maharashtra. Evacuee Property Declaration: After Mohd. Hasham Abdulla migrated to Pakistan, his 1/4th share in the property was declared as "evacuee property" on June 21, 1951, by the Deputy Custodian.

Partition and Tenancy Claims Partition Claim: The appellants asserted that a partition of the partnership properties occurred on May 16, 1956, and claimed that the land in question fell to the share of Mohd. Hasham Abdulla, subsequently asserting tenancy rights over this property. Legal Proceedings: Pursuant to the declaration of evacuee property, actions were taken under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, resulting in an order by the Assistant Custodian on April 28, 1969, and subsequent notices for surrender of possession issued in 1970 and 1971.

High Court Proceedings Writ Petitions: The appellants challenged these orders in the Bombay High Court, raising several contentions. High Court Judgment: The High Court dismissed these contentions, ruling against the appellants.

Supreme Court Judgment Dismissal of CA No. 1393/77: This appeal was dismissed as the respondent No. 11 had died, causing the appeal to abate. Main Contentions in Other Appeals: The key argument by the appellants was that they were tenants of the property before August 14, 1947, and therefore, their tenancy could not be terminated under Section 12(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision Requirement of Specific Findings: The Supreme Court noted that for Section 12(2) of the Act to apply, there must be a specific finding that the appellants had tenancy rights granted by Mohd. Hasham Abdulla prior to August 14, 1947. No such finding existed in the High Court records. Non-Application of Section 12(2): Without a specific finding on tenancy, the appellants' reliance on Section 12(2) was misplaced. Effect of Section 4(1) of the AEP Act: The High Court had ruled that Section 4(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which has a non obstante clause, overrides any pre-existing laws, thereby extinguishing any alleged tenancy rights. Jurisdiction and Authority: The Supreme Court upheld that the orders of the Tehsildar and Assistant Custodian were valid, and no jurisdictional error was found.

Conclusion Dismissal of Appeals: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the High Court's judgment that the appellants' tenancy claims were not legally sustainable due to the overriding effect of the AEP Act.

Summary The appellants' claims of tenancy rights over the land were rejected because there was no specific finding of tenancy prior to 1947, and the provisions of the AEP Act extinguished any such claims. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the appellants' contentions and found no reason to interfere with the orders directing them to surrender possession of the land.