9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the orders dated April 2, 1964, and February 1, 1965, issued by the Deputy Custodian General. 2. Interpretation of Section 28 and Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. 3. Application of Section 7-A of the Act in relation to the proceedings. 4. Time limitation for issuing notice under Section 27 of the Act. 5. Definition and authority of the Custodian General under the Act. 6. Jurisdiction of the authorities to review orders based on fraud allegations. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the Delhi High Court's decision dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellants. The appellants, Fatima Bi and Mohd. Sayeed, sought to challenge two orders issued by the Deputy Custodian General in 1964 and 1965. The dispute arose from the declaration of Fatima Bi's property as evacuee property in 1953, which was later reversed in 1956 by the Assistant Custodian, stating she was a non-evacuee owner. Subsequently, in 1964, a notice was issued to reconsider the 1956 order due to alleged fraud and illegality. The High Court addressed three contentions raised by the appellants regarding the finality of the 1956 order, the applicability of Section 7-A, and the time limitation for issuing the notice under Section 27. The High Court ruled that the 1956 order was not final and could be reopened under Section 27 of the Act, as Section 28 did not bar the revision powers. Additionally, the court held that Section 7-A did not prevent the notice issuance as the proceedings were pending before May 7, 1954. Moreover, the court found no time limitation for issuing the notice under Section 27. The appellants' argument that the 1964 order was invalid as it was not passed by the Custodian General was dismissed, clarifying the authority of Custodians under the Act. The judgment emphasized that the authorities had the power to review orders based on fraud allegations, as fraud is a question of fact that can be challenged by the affected party. The court rejected the appellants' contentions, stating that the petition was misconceived, and the authorities had jurisdiction to question the legality of the orders. The judgment highlighted that certiorari was not applicable in this case as the authorities had the jurisdiction to issue the notice. Despite the delay in questioning the 1956 order, the authorities were directed to expedite the proceedings. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs, concluding the legal battle over the property status and the validity of the orders under the Evacuee Property Act.
|
