IMPORTANT POINT
When order of the Custodian was already approved by Assistant Custodian General, Custodian General s delegate, then Custodian General could not exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 27 of Administration of Evacuee Property against that order.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-Leave granted.

By consent of learned advocates, all these appeals are heard finally. Short question involved in these appeals is indicated by order dated 04th October 1996 while issuing notice in the main S.L.P. The order reads as under :

"Application for substitution allowed.

Issue notice limited to the question of the interpretation of Section 27 read with Section 55 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, returnable on December 6, 1996 indicating that the matters may be finally disposed of on the miscellaneous stage itself.

No stay."

Consequently, we will be concerned only with this short question. Few relevant facts leading to these appeals deserve to be noted to appreciate the nature of the controversy posed for our consideration.

2. By an order dated 11th November, 1982, the Custodian of Evacuee Property, U.P. functioning under the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) ordered that Kothi No. 183, Civil Lines, Agra be transferred in favour of Shri Harnath Chaturvedi, son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal at auction price of Rs. 61,000/-. That order was submitted to the Assistant Custodian General of Evacuee Property for his approval on the same day. The said order got approved by the Assistant Custodian General, U.P. Against this order the State of U.P. filed a Revision Application under Section 27 of the said Act before the Custodian General of Evacuee Property. The Custodian General after hearing the parties concerned took the view that as his delegate had already approved the order sought to be revised, he could not exercise his revisional jurisdiction against the same order. In the result, the Revision Application was dismissed as not maintainable. It was thereafter that the State of U.P. filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad being Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 16775 of 1985. Two other writ petitions filed by the other contesting parties were clubbed with the said writ petition of the State of U.P. and all the three were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court and by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench took the view that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act could be exercised by the Custodian General against the order of the first authority, namely, the Custodian and consequently, the proceedings in revision were remanded for fresh decision on merits. Certain other observations were made and directions were given in the said common order. It is thereafter that the aggrieved parties have challenged the said common order in these appeals by special leave.

3. Now it is to be appreciated that when the Custodian passed the original order, he was exercising his jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Act, sub-sections (1) and (2)(o) of which read as under :

"10. Powers and duties of the Custodian generally.-(1) Subject to the provisions of any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Custodian may take such measures as he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of securing, administering, preserving and managing any evacuee property and generally for the purpose of enabling him satisfactorily to discharge any of the duties imposed on him by or under this Act and may, for any such purpose as aforesaid, do all acts and incur all expenses necessary or incidental thereto.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the Custodian may, for any of the purposes aforesaid-

(a) to (n)... ... ... ...

(o) transfer in any manner whatsoever any evacuee property notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or agreement relating thereto:

Provided that the Custodian shall not sell any immoveable property or any business or other undertaking of the evacuee, except with the previous approval of the Custodian-General;"

4. It must, therefore, be held that the original order dated 11.11.1982 pass