SADHU RAM vs THE CUSTODIAN-GENERAL OF EVACUEEPROPERTY.

The Supreme Court held that Section 5-A of the East Punjab Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, 1947, while having retrospective effect, does not constitute deprivation of property under Article 31 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the requirement for confirmation of transactions involving evacuee property is a reasonable restriction rather than a deprivation. Consequently, the refusal of confirmation by the Custodian, based on a policy directive, does not violate any fundamental rights, and the application under Article 32 was dismissed.