9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Revisional Power of Custodian-General. 2. Merits of the Custodian-General's Order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Revisional Power of Custodian-General: This appeal concerns the exercise of revisional power by the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property, revising an order by the Additional Custodian of East Punjab, Delhi. The primary question is whether the Custodian-General had the authority to exercise such revisional power. The appellant, a displaced person from Lahore, exchanged property with an evacuee, Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon, which required confirmation by the Custodian under section 5-A of the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947. The appellant applied for confirmation on February 23, 1948, and again on August 14, 1948. The Additional Custodian confirmed the exchange on March 20, 1952. However, the Custodian-General issued a notice under section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, to show cause why the order should not be set aside, eventually revising the order on May 20, 1953. The legislative history includes several amendments and repeals, transitioning from provincial to centralized administration. The East Punjab Act XIV of 1947 was replaced by Central Ordinance No. XII of 1949, then by Central Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949, and finally by the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Each legislative measure provided for the appointment of a Custodian-General with powers of appeal and revision. Section 27 of the 1950 Act allowed the Custodian-General to revise any order to ensure its legality or propriety. The appellant argued that the Custodian-General's revisional powers under the 1950 Act should not apply to an application made before the office was established. However, the Court found that the repealing provisions of the 1950 Act, particularly section 58(3), indicated that pending actions should be deemed as commenced under the new law. The Court concluded that the appellant's application for confirmation, pending when the 1950 Act came into force, should be dealt with under the new Act, making the order of confirmation subject to the Custodian-General's revisional power. Merits of the Custodian-General's Order: The second issue is whether the Custodian-General's order on its merits warranted interference by the Court. The Custodian-General set aside the Additional Custodian's order due to the absence of notice to prior allottees. The appellant contended that the allottees had no interest in the land entitling them to contest the confirmation, as they were only lessees for three years. The appellant also argued that the Custodian-General's findings on the bona fides of the transaction were categorical, making the revision perverse. The respondent countered that the allottees had a quasi-permanent interest and should have been notified. The Custodian-General's order was challenged for not clearly indicating whether the remand was general or limited. The Court found the order ambiguous and difficult to maintain, necessitating a remand for fresh consideration by the Custodian-General. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the Custodian-General's order was set aside. The case was remanded for fresh consideration, with instructions to provide clear guidelines if a remand to the Custodian was deemed necessary. The Custodian-General was advised to consider resolving the matter himself to avoid further delays. There was no order as to costs.
|
