Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : What is the relevant date by reference to which the character of the property has to be determined in issuing a notification of evacuee property under section 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (No. 31 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act) - that is the short question which arises in this appeal. The decision of this question lies within a very narrow compass, because it has to be found on a reasonable construction of the material words used in S. 7(1) itself; but the determination of the scope and effect of these material words presents a somewhat difficult problem of construction and it has to be resolved after reading the said provision in the light of other relevant circumstances.

2. An Indian citizen named Daulat Ram Surana was carrying on business, at Delhi as a Jeweller in the name of Sardar Singh Daulat Ram. He had a Muslim mistress and it appeals that by reason of his affection for the said mistress he migrated to Pakistan in the first week of February, 1950. He was possessed of extensive properties, both movable and immovable, but apparently, he was involved in financial difficulties about that time, and so, before he migrated to Pakistan he transferred his 1/2 share in his ancestral house in Baidwara Street, Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 26,000. On the 14th March, 1950, Nanak Chand and certain other persons claiming to be his creditors, filed a petition of insolvency against the firm of Daulat Ram and against Daulat Ram himself. On the 17th June, l950, both the firm and Daulat Ram were adjudicated insolvents and the respondent the Official Receiver, was appointed the Receiver of the estate of the insolvents. In August, 1951, the Official Receiver wanted to sell some items of the insolvents property and the sale was fixed to be held on the l8th August 1951. Two days prior thereto, however, the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property issued a notice under S. 7(1) of the Act to Daulat Ram and other interested persons to show cause why he should not be declared an evacuee under S. 2(d)(i) of the Act. The respondent came to know of the said proceedings appeared before the Assistant Custodian and raised objections to the property of Daulat Ram being declared as evacuee property. These objections were overruled by the Assistant Custodian and the property of Daulat Ram was declared evacuee property on the 15th February, 1954. The respondent challenged this order by preferring an appeal before the Authorised Dy. Custodian, and when the appeal was dismissed, he moved the Custodian General in his revisional jurisdiction. The revision application filed by the respondent was also dismissed. The respondent then moved the Punjab High Court by a writ petition and challenged the validity, of the orders passed by the respective authorities under the Act, declaring the property of Daulat Ram as evacuee property. To this petition the Dy. Custodian, Evacuee Property, the Authorised Dy. Custodian and the Assistant Custodian were impleaded as respondents. These are the appellants before us.

3. When this matter was taken up before Bishan Narain J. of the Punjab High Court, he took the view that the point raised for his decision was of considerable importance, and so, he thought that it should be decided by a larger Bench. That is how the writ petition was placed before a Division Bench of the said High Court. The Division Bench has upheld the plea raised by the respondent and has directed that the orders made by the Custodian Department that the entire property of Daulat Ram vests in the Custodian are illegal and should be quashed by a writ of certiorari. It is against this order that the appellants have come to this court with a certificate granted by the High Court.

4. The dispute between the parties in the present proceedings centres round that competing claims based on the retrospective operation of the two relevant orders. The appellants contend that when a notification is issued