SADHU RAM vs. THE CUSTODIAN-GENERAL OF EVACUEE PROPERTY

Case Analysis

SADHU RAM vs. THE CUSTODIAN-GENERAL OF EVACUEE PROPERTY

April 22, 2025

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This landmark case, Sadhu Ram v. The Custodian-General of Evacuee Property, decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1955, raised fundamental constitutional questions about property rights, retrospectivity, and administrative fairness. The petitioner had purchased agricultural land from a Muslim evacuee in September 1947—before the enactment of the East Punjab Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, 1947. With subsequent amendments, particularly Section 5-A introduced in 1948 but retrospectively applicable from August 15, 1947, the law required the Custodian’s confirmation to validate such transfers. Although the Assistant Custodian found the transaction genuine and recommended confirmation, higher authorities rejected it based on a policy circular refusing confirmation of agricultural land sales. The petitioner alleged this was an unconstitutional deprivation of property without compensation and a breach of fundamental rights under Articles 31 and 19. The Court, however, held that Section 5-A merely imposed a reasonable restriction rather than depriving property. Further, since the Custodian’s decision stemmed from a quasi-judicial process, not a law, Article 32 could not be invoked. This case provided a foundational understanding of the intersection of administrative decisions and constitutional protections concerning evacuee properties.

Keywords: Evacuee Property, Retrospective Law, Article 32, Property Rights, Reasonable Restriction

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Sadhu Ram v. The Custodian-General of Evacuee Property

ii) Case Number: Petition No. 306 of 1954

iii) Judgement Date: 28th October, 1955

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: S.R. Das (Acting C.J.), Vivian Bose, Jagannadhadas, Jafer Imam, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ.

vi) Author: Justice Jagannadhadas

vii) Citation: (1955) 2 S.C.R. 1113

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Article 19 of the Constitution of India
Article 31 of the Constitution of India
Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Section 5-A of East Punjab Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (as amended by Act XXVI of 1948)

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None specified

x) Case is Related to: Constitutional Law, Property Law, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Post-Partition India witnessed the enactment of various emergency legal measures, particularly in relation to properties left behind by evacuees. The East Punjab Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 was one such legislative response, aiming to regulate, protect, and administer properties abandoned by Muslims migrating to Pakistan. The law underwent multiple amendments due to escalating disputes over ownership and legality of transactions done during the chaotic period of August–December 1947. Among such amendments was the insertion of Section 5-A, having retrospective effect from 15th August 1947, which stipulated that no transaction regarding evacuee property would be effective without confirmation by the Custodian. This created a legal grey zone for bona fide purchasers like Sadhu Ram who had entered into and registered property deals during that volatile period. This constitutional petition under Article 32 arose from the refusal by authorities to confirm his transaction, challenging the legitimacy and effect of such retrospective legislation vis-à-vis fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 31.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Sadhu Ram, the petitioner, purchased 43 bighas and 14 biswas of agricultural land from Imam-ud-Din, a Muslim evacuee, through a registered sale deed dated 6th September 1947. The transaction was genuine and complete: possession was handed over and Rs. 2,700 out of Rs. 3,000 was paid before the Sub-Registrar. Mutation was also duly recorded. However, the East Punjab Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act came into effect on 12th December 1947, with further amendments adding Section 5-A retrospectively from 15th August 1947. This provision rendered all such transactions ineffective unless confirmed by the Custodian. Sadhu Ram applied for confirmation on 23rd March 1948. The Assistant Custodian recommended approval but the Additional Custodian rejected it, following a 1950 policy circular barring confirmations of agricultural land sales. The Assistant Custodian-General affirmed the rejection. Sadhu Ram moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, contending the retrospective provision and executive action infringed his constitutional rights under Articles 31 and 19.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether retrospective operation of Section 5-A amounted to unconstitutional deprivation of property under Article 31 of the Constitution?

ii. Whether the confirmation requirement under Section 5-A was an unreasonable restriction on the right to acquire and hold property under Article 19(1)(f)?

iii. Whether a quasi-judicial refusal to confirm a transaction based on an executive circular could be challenged under Article 32 for breach of fundamental rights?

iv. Whether reliance on irrelevant material (i.e., policy circulars) rendered the administrative order void?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the insertion of Section 5-A with retrospective effect deprived the petitioner of his legitimately acquired property, thereby violating Article 31 which prohibited deprivation of property without authority of law or compensation. They argued that the sale was executed, registered, and possession transferred before the law came into force, making it unfair to retrospectively invalidate the transfer[1].

ii. It was further submitted that the provision imposed unreasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(f) since the petitioner’s right to acquire and hold property was unjustly subjected to an ex post facto condition—the requirement of confirmation.

iii. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the administrative action as a colorable exercise of power, alleging that the Additional Custodian acted not on the merits but solely under an executive circular—thus making the decision arbitrary and based on irrelevant considerations[2].

iv. The invocation of a general circular denying confirmation of agricultural land transfers, regardless of genuineness, undermined the quasi-judicial nature of the confirmation process and violated principles of natural justice.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that Section 5-A imposed only a procedural restriction and did not result in deprivation. The transaction was incomplete in the eyes of law until confirmation, which was a valid legislative requirement in the public interest[3].

ii. The retrospective application was justified considering the extraordinary post-Partition circumstances and was within the legislative competence of the state. The objective was to prevent fraudulent transactions and protect evacuee property from illegal alienation.

iii. They emphasized that Article 32 could not be used to challenge an administrative or quasi-judicial decision. The petitioner had no enforceable fundamental right violated by an individual act of refusal under a valid law.

iv. The respondents further argued that the refusal to confirm was not arbitrary but in alignment with policy intended to preserve agricultural lands for displaced persons and returning evacuees.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 19(1)(f) (Now repealed) – Protected the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property.

ii. Article 31 (Now repealed) – Provided safeguards against deprivation of property without authority of law.

iii. Article 32 – Provides the right to constitutional remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights.

iv. Section 5-A of the East Punjab Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 – Declared transfers made on or after 15th August 1947 by evacuees as ineffective unless confirmed by the Custodian.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Court held that Section 5-A, though retrospective, did not deprive anyone of property; rather, it imposed a restriction that was reasonable in the context of the evacuee property laws and the social upheaval of Partition.

ii. It affirmed that the petitioner’s loss stemmed from a quasi-judicial decision and not any unconstitutional provision of law. As such, there was no infringement of fundamental rights actionable under Article 32.

iii. The judgment emphasized that the need for confirmation was a reasonable procedural safeguard to ensure genuine transactions and prevent illegal alienation of evacuee properties.

b. OBITER DICTA

i. Even if the Custodian’s order relied on irrelevant materials like policy circulars, it would not automatically amount to violation of fundamental rights. Judicial review under Article 32 is limited to enforcement of such rights and not mere illegality in administrative action[4].

c. GUIDELINES

No fundamental right to property arises when the loss results from a valid administrative process.
Retrospective laws are permissible if they impose procedural restrictions and not substantive deprivations.
Executive circulars can guide quasi-judicial discretion unless they override statutory mandates or principles of fairness.
Article 32 petitions must involve a direct infringement of constitutional rights, not collateral administrative disputes.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This decision underscores the Indian Supreme Court’s nuanced interpretation of property rights in the early constitutional era. By distinguishing deprivation from restriction, the Court upheld the power of the state to retrospectively regulate property transactions involving evacuees to address national exigencies. The judgment clarified that only an unconstitutional law—not a wrongful administrative act—triggers remedies under Article 32. This principle maintains the balance between individual rights and state interests in post-conflict rehabilitation. Although viewed critically by some as diminishing procedural fairness, the decision reflects the socio-legal priorities of that time. It remains a cornerstone for understanding the evolution of administrative discretion, retrospective laws, and fundamental rights jurisprudence in India.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
[1] State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92
[2] Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co., AIR 1954 SC 119
[3] Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1952 SC 252
[4] A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27

b. Important Statutes Referred