9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 27 read with Section 5 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 in conjunction with the actions taken by the Custodian General and the Custodian of Evacuee Property in a specific case. The case originated from an order dated 11th November, 1982, where the Custodian of Evacuee Property in U.P. ordered the transfer of a property to an individual. The State of U.P. challenged this order through a revision application under Section 27 of the Act before the Custodian General, who dismissed the application as not maintainable. Subsequently, the State of U.P. filed a writ petition before the High Court, which led to a Division Bench remanding the matter back to the Custodian General for a fresh decision. The key issue was whether the Custodian General could exercise revisional powers over an order already approved by his delegate, the Assistant Custodian General. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, specifically Section 10 which outlines the powers of the Custodian to transfer evacuee property. It was noted that the original order by the Custodian required approval from the Assistant Custodian General, who acted as a delegate of the Custodian General. The Court highlighted Section 55 of the Act, which allows the Custodian General to delegate powers to the Assistant Custodian General. As the original order was approved by the delegate of the Custodian General, it was deemed to have the approval of the Custodian General himself. The Court further delved into the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, which empowers the Custodian General to revise orders passed by Custodians. However, it was emphasized that the Custodian General cannot review an order already approved by his delegate, as it would amount to an unauthorized exercise of review power not envisaged under the Act. Drawing parallels from a previous case, the Court concluded that the revision application before the Custodian General was incompetent, and the original order could not be revised by the Custodian General. In light of these findings, the Court set aside the High Court's decision and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision on the legality and propriety of the original orders dated 11-11-1982 and 18-11-1982 passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The Court emphasized that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the orders and instructed the High Court to expedite the proceedings, preferably within four months from the receipt of the order. This judgment clarifies the scope of revisional powers under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 and underscores the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and delegation of powers within the statutory framework.
|
