Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.22 seconds)
Documents citing S.M. Zaki vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 5 January, 1953

Wazira And Anr. vs Shamulal And Ors. on 18 June, 1960

9. The next case is S. M. Zaki v. State of Bihar, AIR 1953 Pat 112. In that case it was contended by the petitioner that he had been wrongly declared an evacuee because he was a citizen of India having his domicile and residence in the territory of this dominion and that at the time of the partition of the country he was in service as a railway employee of the then East Indian Railway and had merely gone to Pakistan having been given an option for service there on account of the exigencies of service, but thereby he had never abandoned his residence or domicile in India and that his wife and children had all the time stayed in a village in India.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Smt. Israr Fatima vs Custodian Evacuee Property U.P., ... on 19 April, 1967

Considering the observations made by the Patna High Court in S. M. Zaki v. State of Bihar, AIR 1953 Pat 112 to the effect that once it was apparent that the Custodian had acquired jurisdiction to take action under the Act of 1950, the mere circumstances that the Custodian had wrongly decided that any property was evacuee property under the Act would not be a sufficient warrant for the High Court to interfere with the order of the Custodian or the Custodian-General inasmuch as Section 46 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of a civil court in 'such matters even though the point may have been wrongly decided, the learned Judge who decided the case of Wazira and another (supra) remarked that the decision may be all right in one sense, but it does not afford any answer to the question whether the civil courts or for that matter the High Court would be powerless to interfere in a matter where the order of the Custodian or Custodian General is without jurisdiction or in excess of their legitimate jurisdiction, and a separate example was then given and it was pointed out that such a case would clearly seem to arise where for example, the Custodian may not have given any notice under Section 7 of the Act of 1950 and nevertheless he proceeds to declare a certain property to be evacuee property. The Judge had no doubt that in such a case the proceedings taken by the Custodian would be entirely without jurisdiction and Section 46 of the Act cannot be allowed as a bar in the way of the civil courts going to hold that the order passed by the Custodian was without jurisdiction in a matter of this kind. The Civil court may not be barred from holding that the order of the Custodian in such a case is without jurisdiction when he declares the property as evacuee property but how does the civil court get jurisdiction to decide whether the property is evacuee property or not or that besides the evacuee some other persons also have interest therein in view of the provisions contained in Section 46. Clause (a) of Section 46 specifically imposes a bar to the entertainment or adjudication of any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not evacuee property. This bar has been provided because Act XXXI of 1950 contemplates the giving of complete opportunity to third person to get his right determined as against the Custodian by his objecting against the vesting of the notified property in the Custodian and the presumption is that the procedure will be followed and opportunity will be offered as provided under the Act. In the instant case, as I have already pointed out, the procedure contemplated under Sections 6 and 8 of Ordinance I of 1949 also ought, to have been followed. But if it has not been followed, the remedy to the person aggrieved is not by way of a civil suit which is barred but is by way of a writ under article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus. The plaintiff, therefore, ought to have filed a writ of mandamus and not the suit giving rise to this second appeal. The remedy by way of a suit is clearly barred under Clause (a) of Section 46.
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Golam Rasul vs Supdt. Of Police And Ors. on 1 September, 1964

11. Mr. Ali, on behalf of the Petitioner, how-ever, relies upon the Patna case of Zaki v. State of Bihar, . In that case, the question was whether it could be said that a person had 'left' India within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and it was held that where a person had not abandoned his 'Indian domicil', he could not be said to have 'left' India, merely, because he went over to Pakistan, after exercising his option, leaving his wife and children in India.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

State vs Abdul Rashid on 19 September, 1960

9. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the case of S. M. Zaki v. State of Bihar. AIR 1953 Pat 112. That was a case under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. In that case the question was whether the petitioner was an evacuee within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. 1950. It wns urged in that case on behalf of the petitioner that the words "leaves or has left" occurring in the clause defining the term "evacuee" must be deemed to have been used in the sense of permanently leaving the Dominion of India with a view to settle down in Pakistan and with the intention of changing one's domicile completely.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ram Kripal Singh And Ors. vs The Assistant Custodian General, ... on 16 December, 1970

11. The ground on which S. M. Zaki's case, AIR 1953 Pat 112 has been decided applies equally to the impugned provisions of Section 9 (2) of the Separation Act. Section 9 of the Separation Act only provides the manner in which the unencumbered extent of the evacuee interest can be precisely known and thus taken out of the conception of composite property. The provisions of this section are in accord with the intention of the Act.
Patna High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Gopal vs Banta Singh And Ors. on 25 February, 1958

5. S. Tirath Singh, who appears for Smt. Harbans Kaur, has invited my attention to S. M. Zaki v. State of Bihar, AIR 1953 Pat. 112 (G). It has been laid down in that case the Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act must be construed to mean that the jurisdiction of a civil Court or revenue Court is ousted even if the Custodian has wrongly decided that any property is an evacuee property under the Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - A N Grover - Full Document
1   2 Next