State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs Meer Baksh & Ors. (2023 INSC 638)
Background
The State of Himachal Pradesh had declared property held by one Sultan Mohammad, predecessor-in-title of the respondents, as "evacuee property" under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, on the claim that he was an evacuee who left for Pakistan. Both the State's own reply before the High Court and a specific concession made by its Additional Advocate General admitted that Sultan Mohammad had, in fact, never left India and lived in Himachal Pradesh until his death in 1983. Based on this admitted position, both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court had set aside the evacuee property declaration, yet the State pursued the matter further to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that since it was an admitted and conceded fact that Sultan Mohammad never left India, he could not be treated as an "evacuee" under Section 2(d)/2(f) of the 1950 Act, and the property could not have been declared evacuee property. The Court found it particularly inappropriate that the State chose to keep litigating this appeal despite its own admission and a formal concession by its Additional Advocate General before the High Court. It dismissed the appeal and imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the State, payable to the respondents within two months, specifically to deprecate the State's conduct in pursuing a case contrary to its own admitted facts.
Lesson Learnt
A government or any litigant that has admitted or conceded a fact in earlier proceedings cannot keep contesting the same point in further appeals. Courts will not only reject such appeals but may impose costs to discourage wasteful litigation built on a party's own prior admissions.