{"id":180853,"date":"1961-03-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-03-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961"},"modified":"2019-02-05T13:31:27","modified_gmt":"2019-02-05T08:01:27","slug":"bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961","title":{"rendered":"Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee &#8230; on 7 March, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee &#8230; on 7 March, 1961<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1257, \t\t  1962 SCR  (1) 189<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M R.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Das, S.K., Sarkar, A.K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBAWA HARIGIR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nASSISTANT CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, BHOPAL.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n07\/03\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nDAS, S.K.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1257\t\t  1962 SCR  (1) 189\n\n\nACT:\nEvacuee\t  Property-Provisions\tregarding   declaration\t  of\nproperty as evacuee property  Confirmation of sale-Power  of\nCustodian  to refuse-Constitutionality of Administration  of\nEvacuee Property Act, 1950 (31 of 1950), ss. 2(d),  40(4)(a)\nConstitution of India, Arts. 31(2), 3x(5)(b)(iii).\n190\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  petitioner purchased some land from R. R. was  declared\nto  be an intending evacuee and be left for  Pakistan.\t The\nAssistant  Custodian issued a 'notice to the  petitioner  to\nshow cause why the land should not be declared to be evacuee\nproperty,  and after hearing the petitioner he declared\t the\nland  to  be  evacuee property.\t An appeal  and\t a  revision\nagainst\t the order were unsuccessful.  The  petitioner\talso\napplied\t to the Custodian under s. 40 Of the  Administration\nof Evacuee Property Act, 1950, for confirmation of the\tsale\nbut  his application was rejected under S. 40(4)(a)  on\t the\nground\tthat  the  evacuee  did not act\t in  good  faith  in\neffecting  the sale.  The petitioner contended that S.\t2(d)\nof the Act defining evacuee property and S. 40(4) empowering\nthe  custodian\tto reject an  application  for\tconfirmation\nviolated  Art. 31(2) as they enabled the State to take\taway\nproperty without the authority of law.\nHeld,  that  the provisions Of SS. 2(d) and 40(4)  were\t not\naffected by Art. 31(2) in view of Art. 31(5)(b)(iii) of\t the\nConstitution.  The protection of Art. 31 (5)(b)(iii) was not\nlimited\t to a law which itself declared any property  to  be\nevacuee\t property but extended to a law which  empowered  an\nauthority  to declare any property as evacuee  property\t and\nlaid  down  the\t criteria  for\tthe  declaration.    Section\n40(4)(a) of the Act which empowered the Custodian to  reject\nan  application\t for  confirmation on the  ground  that\t the\ntransaction  had not been entered into in good\tfaith  could\nnot  be\t challenged as conferring arbitrary  powers  on\t the\nCustodian.  The power was in the nature of a judicial  power\nand  the absence of a standard for the determination of\t the\nquestion could not render the provision unconstitutional.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 87 of 1957.<br \/>\nPetition  under\t Art. 32 of the Constitution  of  India\t for<br \/>\nenforcement of fundamental rights.\n<\/p>\n<p>B.   D. Sharma, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>N.   S.\t Bindra,  R  H.\t Dhebar\t and  T.  M.  Sen,  for\t the<br \/>\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>1961.  March 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nMUDHOLKAR,  J.-In  this\t petition  under  Art.\t32  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution the petitioner contends that the provisions  of<br \/>\nthe  Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950  (XXXI  of<br \/>\n1950) and in particular those of s. 2 (d) and sub-s. (4)  of<br \/>\ns. 40 are unconstitutional.  According to him the effect  of<br \/>\nthe  order  passed against him by the Custodian\t of  Evacuee<br \/>\nProperties  under sub-s. (4) of s. 40 of the Act is to\ttake<br \/>\naway his<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">191<\/span><br \/>\nproperty without the authority of law.\tHe further  contends<br \/>\nthat the order of the Custodian amounts to discrimination in<br \/>\npractice  against  the petitioner.  These are the  two\tmain<br \/>\nheads under which the arguments advanced before us could  be<br \/>\nclassified.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  relevant  facts  may now  be  stated.   The  petitioner<br \/>\npurchased  195-51 acres of land in the former  Bhopal  State<br \/>\nfrom   one  Babu  Rehmatullah  on  June\t 23,  1950,  for   a<br \/>\nconsideration of Rs. 3,500.  Rehmatullah was declared to  be<br \/>\nan  intending evacuee by the Assistant Custodian of  Evacuee<br \/>\nProperty.  Eventually he left India for Pakistan on June 20,<br \/>\n1951.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  June  12,  1951,  the  Assistant  Custodian\t of  Evacuee<br \/>\nProperty issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why<br \/>\nthe land which he had purchased from Rehmatullah should\t not<br \/>\nbe  declared  to be &#8220;evacuee property&#8221;.\t After\thearing\t the<br \/>\npetitioner the property was declared to be evacuee  property<br \/>\non August 8, 1951.  The petitioner challenged that order  in<br \/>\nappeal as well as in revision as provided in the Act but was<br \/>\nunsuccessful.\tA writ petition preferred by him before\t the<br \/>\nJudicial  Commissioner, Bhopal, was dismissed in  limine  on<br \/>\nJuly  14,  1954.  He has, therefore, come up to\t this  Court<br \/>\nunder Art. 32 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  first point pressed &#8216;before us by Mr. B. D. Sharma,  on<br \/>\nbehalf\tof  the\t petitioner is that the\t provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nEvacuee Property Act and particularly those of ss. 2 (d) and<br \/>\n40  (4) are unconstitutional, because they enable the  State<br \/>\nto  take  away\tproperty  without  paying  any\tcompensation<br \/>\ntherefore  as required by Art. 31 (2) of  the  Constitution.<br \/>\nThe  short answer to this contention is that the  provisions<br \/>\nof  a  law made in pursuance of any agreement  entered\tinto<br \/>\nbetween\t the Government of India and the Government  of\t any<br \/>\nother country or otherwise With respect to property declared<br \/>\nby  law to be evacuee property will not be affected  by\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of\tcl. 2 of Art. 31.  This is  clear  from\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of Art. 31(5)(b)(iii) which rules is thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Nothing in clause (2) shall affect<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      192<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b) the provisions of any law which the State<br \/>\n\t      may hereafter make-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (iii)  in pursuance of any  agreement  entered<br \/>\n\t      into between the Government of the Dominion of<br \/>\n\t      India  or\t the  Government of  India  and\t the<br \/>\n\t      Government of any other country, or otherwise,<br \/>\n\t      with respect to property declared by law to be<br \/>\n\t      evacuee property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Mr.  Sharma, however, contends that the protection  afforded<br \/>\nby  the\t aforesaid  clause must be limited to  a  law  which<br \/>\nitself declares any property to be evacuee property and\t not<br \/>\nto a law which empowers an authority to declare any property<br \/>\nas evacuee property.  We cannot accept the contention.\t The<br \/>\nwords  &#8220;property  declared by law to  be  evacuee  property&#8221;<br \/>\nwould  necessarily include property which could be  declared<br \/>\nas  evacuee  property.\tA law relating to  evacuee  property<br \/>\nwould  concern\titself\twith laying down  the  criteria\t for<br \/>\ndetermining  what  property is to be considered\t as  evacuee<br \/>\nproperty and could not be expected to specify the particular<br \/>\nproperties  which are to be treated as\tevacuee\t properties.<br \/>\nThe  protection\t afforded by  the  constitutional  provision<br \/>\nwhich we have quoted above is not restricted as suggested by<br \/>\nMr.  Sharma  but  extends to a law which  provides  for\t the<br \/>\ndetermination of the criteria for declaring property to be<br \/>\nevacuee property.\n<\/p>\n<p>The next argument of learned counsel is that the property in<br \/>\nquestion is not evacuee property and that the provisions  of<br \/>\nArt.  31(1) of the Constitution are a bar against taking  it<br \/>\naway.\tIt  is difficult to appreciate the  argument.\tWhat<br \/>\nArt.  31(1)  prohibits is &#8220;deprivation of property  save  by<br \/>\nauthority of law&#8221;.  No doubt the petitioner can say that  he<br \/>\nis deprived of his property because of the declaration\tmade<br \/>\nby the Custodian that it is evacuee property.  But then this<br \/>\ndeclaration  has been made in pursuance of a law enacted  by<br \/>\nParliament.   If, as contended by him, we had held that\t the<br \/>\nlaw  is\t unconstitutional  the\tposition  would\t have\tbeen<br \/>\ndifferent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The next contention of learned counsel is that cls. (a) and\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) of s. 40, sub-s. (4) are ultra vires because<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">193<\/span><br \/>\nthey confer arbitrary power upon the Custodian.\t The  reason<br \/>\nfor  raising the contention is that an application  made  by<br \/>\nthe  petitioner to the Custodian under s. 40 for  confirming<br \/>\nthe  sale  in his favour was rejected by him on\t the  ground<br \/>\nthat  the evacuee did not act , in good faith  in  effecting<br \/>\nthe sale.  Sub-s. (4) of s. 40 P.reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The Custodian shall hold an inquiry into\t the<br \/>\n\t      application  in the prescribed manner and\t may<br \/>\n\t      reject  the application, if the is of  opinion<br \/>\n\t      that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   the\t transaction  has not  been  entered<br \/>\n\t      into   in\t  good\t faith\t or   for   valuable<br \/>\n\t      consideration, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)   the transaction is prohibited under\t any<br \/>\n\t      law for the time being in force, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (c)   the\t  transaction\tought  not   to\t  be<br \/>\n\t      confirmed for any other reason.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>We are concerned here only with cl. (a) of s. 40(4) to which<br \/>\nthe  Custodian\tresorted and not with cl.  (c).\t  We  would,<br \/>\ntherefore, limit our remarks to el. (a).  Subsection (4)  of<br \/>\ns. 40 enables the Custodian to hold an inquiry regarding the<br \/>\ngenuineness  or\t validity  of a\t transaction  sought  to  be<br \/>\nconfirmed  and cl. (a) empowers him to refuse to confirm  it<br \/>\nif  he\tfinds that it was not entered into  in\tgood  faith.<br \/>\nAccording  to  learned counsel the words  &#8220;good\t faith&#8221;\t are<br \/>\nvague  and &#8220;slippery&#8221; and do not furnish any standard  or  a<br \/>\nnorm  which has to be conformed to by the Custodian.   Apart<br \/>\nfrom the fact that the words &#8220;good faith&#8221; occur in a  number<br \/>\nof  statutes and have acquired a definite meaning in  courts<br \/>\nof  law, it may be pointed out that the power  conferred  by<br \/>\nsub-s.\t(4)  of S. 40 is in the nature of a  judicial  power<br \/>\nand,   therefore,  the\tabsence\t of  a\tstandard   for\t the<br \/>\ndetermination of the question would not render the provision<br \/>\nunconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned\t counsel wanted to contend that the absence of\tgood<br \/>\nfaith  on the part of the transferee was not sufficient\t and<br \/>\ncould  not be regarded as a ground for refusing\t recognition<br \/>\nto  the\t transfer  and\tthat unless it\tis  shown  that\t the<br \/>\ntransferee  was also lacking in good faith the transfer\t had<br \/>\nto be confirmed under sub-s. (4) of s. 40.  He, however, did<br \/>\nnot press the contention<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">194<\/span><br \/>\nwhen  it  was pointed out to him that in <a href=\"\/doc\/1930135\/\">Rabia\tBai  v.\t The<br \/>\nCustodian-General  of Evacuee Property<\/a> (1), this  Court\t has<br \/>\nupheld\tthe order of the Custodian refusing to\tconfirm\t the<br \/>\ntransfer  on the ground that the evacuee had effected it  in<br \/>\nbad faith.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  last contention of learned counsel is that he has\tbeen<br \/>\ndiscriminated  against\tby the Custodian in  the  matter  of<br \/>\nconfirmation of the transaction.  He said that prior to\t the<br \/>\nsale of the land to him by Rehmatullah, the latter had\tsold<br \/>\na  house  to some nurses and that sale was found to  be\t for<br \/>\ninadequate  consideration  but\tin  spite  of  that  it\t was<br \/>\nconfirmed  by  the Custodian while the sale in\this  favour,<br \/>\nthough\tfound  to be for an adequate consideration  was\t not<br \/>\nconfirmed.  We would repeat that the order of the  Custodian<br \/>\nis  a  judicial order and merely because he  may  have\tgone<br \/>\nwrong  in  dealing  with one case we cannot  hold  that\t the<br \/>\npetitioner has been discriminated against.  The petition  is<br \/>\nwholly\twithout basis and is accordingly  dismissed  without<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>Petition dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee &#8230; on 7 March, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1257, 1962 SCR (1) 189 Author: M R. Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Das, S.K., Sarkar, A.K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: BAWA HARIGIR Vs. RESPONDENT: ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, BHOPAL. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/03\/1961 BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee ... on 7 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee ... on 7 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-05T08:01:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee &#8230; on 7 March, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-05T08:01:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961\"},\"wordCount\":1351,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961\",\"name\":\"Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee ... on 7 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-05T08:01:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee &#8230; on 7 March, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee ... on 7 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee ... on 7 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-05T08:01:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee &#8230; on 7 March, 1961","datePublished":"1961-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-05T08:01:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961"},"wordCount":1351,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961","name":"Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee ... on 7 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-05T08:01:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bawa-harigir-vs-assistant-custodian-evacuee-on-7-march-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bawa Harigir vs Assistant Custodian, Evacuee &#8230; on 7 March, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180853","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180853"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180853\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}