TMI Blog1973 (3) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court. The appellants asked for quashing two orders, dated April 2, 1964, and February 1, 1965. On April 29, 1964, the Deputy Custodian General issued a notice to the appellant Fatima Bi to show cause why the order, dated January 11, 1956, should not be revised as the same was obtained by fraud and was illegal. The appellant Fatima Bi made an application for cancelling the notice requiring her to show cause. On February 1, 1965, the Deputy Custodian General passed an order rejecting the objections of the appellant Fatima Bi. By the said order, dated February 1, 1965 the authorised Deputy Custodian was asked to expedite recording of evidence and submission of report. 3. The appellant Fatima Bi is the wife of the appellant Mohd. Sayee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings under Section 27 of the Act were barred by limitation. 5. The High Court held that the order dated January 11, 1956, was not final and it could be re-opened. Section 28 of the Act was held by the High Court not to be a bar to the powers of revision under Section 27 of the Act. Section 28 makes orders final save as otherwise expressly provided in Chapter V. Sections 27 and 28 both occur in Chapter V. Therefore, the High Court rightly held that the power of revision under Section 27 was not taken away by Section 28 of the Act. 6. The High Court also held that Section 7-A of the Act did not constitute a bar to the issue of notice under Section 27. The bar in Section 7-A is that no property shall be declared to be evacuee proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duties imposed on them by or under this Act under the general superintendence and control of the Custodian General. The order dated April 29, 1964, was validly made for Custodian General. 10. The petition of the appellants was utterly misconceived. The relevant authorities have power to call for the record of any proceeding in which any Custodian has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying as to the legality or propriety of such order. In the present case the order has been questioned by the authorities on the ground that the appellant Fatima Bi obtained the order fraudulently. Fraud is a question of fact. It is open to the appellant Fatima Bi to establish that she obtained the order properly. Certiorari will not lie for the obvio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
