TMI Blog1965 (10) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 44 of 1954, the Central Government by a notification dated May 27, 1955 acquired the property for the Central pool constituted under that Act. On June 7, 1957 the property was put up for sale by public auction and was purchased by one Ram Chand Kohli. On September 27, 1961 the State of Uttar Pradesh applied under s. 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 31 of 1950 invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Custodian-General against the order of the Deputy Custodian notifying the property as evacuee property. The State of Uttar Pradesh claimed that the property belonged to the State and Chowdhry Akbar Hussain had no proprietary interest in the property and accordingly the Deputy Custodian had no power to declare it evacuee property . It was submitted that the State of Uttar Pradesh was not aware of the notification declaring the property to be evacuee property, nor of the subsequent proceedings and of the sale to Ram Chand Kohli. The appellants who are the legal representatives of Ram Chand Kohli contended, inter alia, that the petition was belated, and that in any event the property being of the ownership of Chowdhry Akbar Hussain it was lawfully declared evacuee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a given case, the Custodian- General may entertain a petition against an order passed by a subordinate authority, notwithstanding gross delay in instituting the proceeding is a matter within his discretion. We do not think that in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution, we would be justified in interfering with the order of the Custodian-General in a matter which is essentially within his competence and relates to the exercise of his discretion, however much we may disagree with him. The question which then must be considered is whether the Custodian-General had the power to entertain the petition under s. 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 31 of 1950, challenging the order passed by the Deputy Custodian on October 12, 1949. It may at once be observed that the reference in the notification issued by the Deputy Custodian to U.P. Ordinance 1 of 1949 has been made on account of some inadvertence. The notification was issued after the U.P. Ordinance expired and when Central Ordinance 12 of 1949 was applied to the United Provinces by Ordinance 20 of 1949. The U.P. Ordinance 1 of 1949 was promulgated by the Governor of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons interested and after holding such 'inquiry into the matter as the circumstances of the case permitted, pass an order declaring any property to be evacuee property, and on such declaration the property vested in the Custodian. By S. 24, any person aggrieved by an order made, amongst other sections, under s. 7, could prefer an appeal to the authority specified in the section. Section 27 invested the Custodian-General with power at any time to call for the record of any proceeding in which any custodian had passed an order in appeal under the provisions of Ch. V for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and to pass such order in relation thereto as he thought fit, and every order made by the Custodian-General, Custodian, Additional Custodian or Assistant Custodian was by S. 28 declared final and not liable to be called in question in any court by way of appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceeding. By sub- S. (1) of S. 55 Ordinance 12 of 1949 was repealed, and by sub-s. (3) it was provided that notwithstanding the repeal of Ordinance 12 of 1949 or of any corresponding law, anything done or an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Ordinance as if that Ordinance were in force on the date on which the proceeding was commenced, thing was done or action was taken. Section 58(3) of Act 31 of 1950 contained a similar deeming provision that an thing done or action taken in exercise of the power conferred under Ordinance 27 of 1949 is to be deemed to have been done or taken in exercise of the power conferred by or under Act 31 of 1950, as if the Act were in force on the day on which such thing was done or action was taken. By this chain of fictions, things done and actions taken under Ordinance 12 of 1949 are to be deemed to have been done or taken in exercise of-the powers conferred under Act 31 of 1950, as if that Act were in force on the day on which such thing was done or action taken. The order passed by the Deputy Custodian under S. 6 of Ordinance 12 of 1949 was, therefore, for the purpose of this proceeding, to be deemed an order made in exercise of the power conferred by Act 31 of 1950 as if that Act were in force on the day on which the order was passed. But it was urged by counsel for the appellants that this chain of fictions did not assist the State of Uttar Pradesh, because by each of the succes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermination, repeal and reenactment of those provisions notwithstanding. This Court held that the application for confirmation of exchange was pending on the date on which Act 31 of 1950 came into force and had to be dealt with and disposed of under that Act; the order of confirmation passed in 1952 was therefore subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the Custodian-General under s. 27 of the Act. That decision can have no application to this case. But counsel relied upon certain observations made by Jagannadhadas, J., at p. 1136 Without attempting to be meticulously accurate, it may be stated in general terms, that the scheme underlying section 58(3) appears to be that every matter to which the new Act applies has to be treated as arising, and to be dealt with, under the new law except insofar as certain consequences have already ensued or acts have been completed prior thereto, to which it is the old law that will apply. These observations, in our judgment, lend no support to the contention that the finality declared under s. 30 of the Ordinance 1 of 1949 in respect of 'the orders passed or proceedings taken remains attached to the order of the Deputy Custodian so as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond part does not apply to it. In the present case under the previous operation of the Ordinance the order of the Custodian had become final. If so, the fiction introduced in the second part could only operate on that order subject to the finality it had acquired under that Ordinance. In our view, the decision of the Court on the principal ground that the chain of fictions was broken, and the impugned order was not one which was to be deemed to have been made under Act 31 of 1950, rendered consideration of all other questions unnecessary. If by the observations set out, it was intended to, lay down that the legal fiction introduced by s. 58(3) of Act 31 of 1950 by which anything done or action taken in exercise of the powers conferred by the earlier Ordinance was to be deemed to have been done or taken in exercise of the powers by or under the Act applies only if under the earlier Ordinance anything. done or action taken had not become final by virtue of the provisions of that Ordinance, we are unable, with respect, to accept that interpretation. By the first part of S. 58(3) repeal of the statutes mentioned therein did not operate to vacate things done or actions taken unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gative, the previous operation of the repealed statutes survives the repeal. Thereby matters and transactions past and closed remain operative : so does the previous operation of the repealed statute. But as pointed out by this Court in Indira Sohanlal's case, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1117 at p. 1133, the saying of the previous operation of the repealed law is not to be read, as saving the future operation of the previous law. The previous law stands repealed, and it has not for the future the partial operation as is prescribed by S. 6 of the General Clauses Act. All things done and actions taken under the repealed statute are deemed to be done or taken in exercise of the powers conferred by or under the repealing Act, as if that Act were in force on the day on which that thing was done or action was taken. It was clearly the intention of the Parliament that matters and transactions past and closed were not to be deemed vacated by the repeal of the statute under which they were done. The previous operation of the statute repealed was also affirmed expressly but things done or actions taken under the repealed statute are to be deemed by fiction to have been done or taken under the repeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rights of a person are infringed, and before he files an appeal or the revising authority is moved, the Ordinance or the Act is repealed and is substituted by a new Act or Ordinance, the person aggrieved would, if the view contended for by the appellants were to prevail, have no remedy at all, because the finality of orders declared by the repealed statute would operate. It may be noted that under s. 27 of Act 31 of 1950 which invests the Custodian-General with powers of revision, an Explanation is incorporated by Act 1 of 1960 that the power conferred on the Custodian-General under s. 27 may be exercised by him in relation to any property, notwithstanding that such property has been acquired under s. 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. This also indicates that even if the evacuee property has been acquired under s. 12 of Act 44 of 1954, it is still open to the Custodian-General in appropriate Cases to exercise his power in revision. We are therefore of the view that the Custodian-General had the power to entertain the revision application filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. On the merits of the order, not much need be said. The pro- cedur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling upon him to give inspection of the documents referred to in the notice. No inspection was given, and the hearing took place on August 14, 1962. It is true that counsel for the appellants did attempt to meet the case sought to be raised by the State of Uttar Pradesh on the merits, and submitted that the property in dispute was owned by Chowdhry Akbar Hussain. That, however, would not justify the procedure followed by the Custodian-General, nor would it lead to the inference that the appellants had, in the circumstances of this case, waived the irregularity in the trial. It is common round before us that at no stage, originals of a large number of documents, on which reliance was placed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, and on which the Custodian- General founded his conclusion, were produced before the Custodian-General. The Custodian-General does not appear to have even told the appellants that he had admitted copies of those documents on the record. Nor did he give to the appellants an opportunity to meet the case which the State of Uttar Pradesh sought to make out. In our view the pro- ceedings of the Custodian-General were so wholly inconsistent with the procedure which may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
