9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Assistant Custodian. 2. Power of the Custodian to declare property as evacuee property. 3. Condoning delay in filing appeal. 4. Validity of notice issued under the Act. Analysis: 1. Appeal against the order of the Assistant Custodian: The appellant filed an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Custodian declaring certain properties as evacuee properties. The main contention raised was whether an appeal lay to the Custodian from the order of the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, at the instance of the Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. It was established that all categories of officers, including Additional, Deputy, and Assistant Custodians, fell within the definition of "Custodian" in the Act. The Court held that the Act did not contemplate one officer preferring appeals against the orders of another officer. Therefore, the Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna, was not a person aggrieved within the meaning of the Act, making the appeal to the Custodian incompetent. 2. Power of the Custodian to declare property as evacuee property: The Court further discussed the powers of the Custodian under the Act to declare a property as evacuee property. It was highlighted that after necessary inquiry, a Custodian could declare a property as evacuee property, following which the property vested in the Custodian. The scheme of the Act outlined the process for managing evacuee properties and the avenues for appeal or revision in case of erroneous declarations. The Court emphasized that the words "any person aggrieved" in the Act did not include a Custodian, and the appeal filed in this case was not competent. 3. Condoning delay in filing appeal: One of the contentions raised was that the Custodian acted perversely in condoning the delay in filing the appeal without providing any reasons. However, this issue was not extensively discussed in the judgment as the primary focus was on the competency of the appeal itself. 4. Validity of notice issued under the Act: The appellant also argued that the notice issued under s. 7(1) of the Act was defective, rendering the subsequent proceedings void. However, this contention was not given significant weight in the judgment as the Court primarily focused on the procedural aspects of the appeal process and the powers of the Custodian. In conclusion, the Court set aside the order of the High Court and directed the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bihar, dated April 26, 1954, declaring certain properties as evacuee properties. The appeal was allowed with costs throughout.
|
