TMI Blog1961 (3) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts relevant to the question raised in this appeal may be briefly stated. On information supplied by one Qurban Ahmad, the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, issued a notice under s. 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee property Act, 1950 (Act 31 of 1950), (hereinafter called the Act), to the appellant to show cause why he should not declare holdings Nos. 326, 774 and 654 in his possession as evacuee properties. The Assistant Custodian, after making the necessary inquiry, held that the said holdings were evacuee properties. The appellant filed a revision petition under s. 26 of the Act against the said order to the Deputy Custodian, Hazaribagh, who set aside the order of the Assistant Custodian and remanded the matter to him for disposal in ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clare any property to be evacuee property unless proceedings are pending on the said date for declaring such property as evacuee property, and that in the present case, as the appeal against the order of the Assistant Custodian was filed only on February 22, 1955, no proceeding was pend- ing on the prescribed date and, therefore, the Custodian illegally made the order in direct contravention of the provisions of B. 7-A of the Act. (3) The Custodian acted perversely in condoning the delay in filing the appeal to him without assigning any reasons. (4) The notice issued to the appellant under s. 7(1) of the Act was defective and, therefore, the proceedings taken pursuant thereto were void. The appellant lost before the High Court on all the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the meaning of the Act, he may, after causing notice thereof to be given in such manner as may be prescribed to the persons interested, and after holding such inquiry into the matter as the circumstances of the case permit, pass an order declaring any such property to be evacuee property. Sub-s. (3) thereof enjoins on him the duty to publish in the Official Gazette all properties declared by him to be evacuee properties. After such declaration the said properties vest in the Custodian for the State. Section 9 empowers the Custodian to take possession of evacuee property vested in him. Section 10 confers powers on the Custodian to take such measures as he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of securing, administering, preservi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Custodian or the Custodian- General, as the case may be, under s. 26 or s. 27 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the words any person aggrieved under s. 25 of the Act are comprehensive enough to include a Custodian and, therefore, a Custodian can prefer an appeal against an order of a Custodian releasing properties under s. 7 of the Act. Realizing that an obvious anomaly is implicit in the argument, learned counsel concedes that an appeal can be filed only by a Custodian other than the Custodian who made the order releasing the properties. It is said that the Central Government may, under s. 6 of the Act, provide for the distribution of work among the various Custodians, namely, Additional, Deputy and Assist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any person aggrieved in the context of the Act cannot include any Custodian as defined in the Act. Strong reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Custodian-General of Evacuee Property [1952] S.C.R. 696 in support of the contention of the respondents. In that case, on information supplied by one Tek Chand Dolwani to the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property, the latter started proceedings under the Bombay Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949, against one Aboobaker. The Additional Custodian, after recording the statement of Aboobaker and examining the evidence produced by Tek Chand Dolwani, held that the said Aboobaker was not an evacuee. Tek Chand Dolwani filed an appeal against the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide for a dispute between two parties to be decided by a tribunal, it is implicit in that provision that the defeated party is one aggrieved by that decision. But the same cannot be said of a Custodian and the party in whose favour he gave a decision; nor can another subordinate officer of the Custodian, who made the decision and who has no statutory duty to appear before the Custodian to put forward the case of the department or lead evidence in support thereof, be equated to a party in a lis. We, therefore, bold, having regard to the scheme of the Act, that the Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna, is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of s. 24 of the Act. The appeal to the Custodian, therefore, was not competent. In this view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
