1956 Supreme(Pat) 128

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Raj Kishore Prasad JJ.
Md.Sharifuddin
Versus
R.P.Singh
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 603 of 1955 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 03, 1956

The words "any person aggrieved" used in Section 24(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 are of the widest amplitude and, therefore, they are wide enough to include even a person of the position of the Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna, who was the person in charge of evacuee properties, which vested in the Custodian, under Section 8 of the Act, and, as such, it was his duty to take possession of such property and to administer and manage such properties.

Headnote:

EVACUEE PROPERTY - ADMINISTRATION OF EVACUEE PROPERTY ACT, 1950 - SECTION 7 - NOTICE - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION OF CUSTODIAN - APPEAL - PERSON AGGRIEVED - LIMITATION - SECTION 24 - SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 7A OF THE ACT - PENDING PROCEEDINGS - PROVISO (A) - DEFECTS IN NOTICE - EFFECT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Md. Sharfuddin, moved the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bihar, which reversed the order of the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, releasing holdings Nos. 326, 774 and 654, situated in Giridih, as belonging to the petitioner, and declared the above holdings to be evacuee properties.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appeal filed by the Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna, under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, against the order of the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, dated the 26th April, 1954, was competent, as he was a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 24(1) of the Act and, as such, entitled to carry an appeal to the Custodian, who has been constituted an appellate Court, under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, on behalf of the Custodian Department as representing the evacuees. The court further held that the reason given by the Custodian in the final order, condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Rule 31(7) of the Rules was a sufficient cause in law under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and, as such, the appeal should not be treated as time barred and incompetent. The court also held that the order of the Custodian declaring the properties to be evacuee properties on the 4th August, 1955, was not without jurisdiction and the entire proceeding was not void, as Section 7A of the Act, which provides that no property shall be declared to be evacuee property on or after the 7th May, 1954, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, has no application to the present case, as the proceeding in respect of the disputed properties which terminated on the 26th April, 1954, by virtue of the order of the Assistant Custodian releasing these properties revived, and the appeal filed against that order made the appeal a continuance of the proceeding which had been started earlier on the 6th April, 1951. The court further held that the entire proceeding started in the present case was not void, because the initial notice issued under Section 7 of the Act was not illegal, as the defects in the notice pointed out by the petitioner were mere irregularities and not illegalities.

Issues: 1. Whether the appeal filed by the Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna, under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, against the order of the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, dated the 26th April, 1954, was competent? 2. Whether the reason given by the Custodian in the final order, condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Rule 31(7) of the Rules was a sufficient cause in law under Section 5 of the Limitation Act? 3. Whether the order of the Custodian declaring the properties to be evacuee properties on the 4th August, 1955, was without jurisdiction and the entire proceeding was void? 4. Whether the entire proceeding started in the present case was void, because the initial notice issued under Section 7 of the Act was illegal?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The words "any person aggrieved" used in Section 24(1) of the Act are of the widest amplitude and, therefore, they are wide enough to include even a person of the position of the Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna, who was the person in charge of evacuee properties, which vested in the Custodian, under Section 8 of the Act, and, as such, it was his duty to take possession of such property and to administer and manage such properties. 2. The reason given by the Custodian in the final order, condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Rule 31(7) of the Rules was a sufficient cause in law under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the Custodian had to be satisfied and he was satisfied, and therefore, he condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. 3. Section 7A of the Act, which provides that no property shall be declared to be evacuee property on or after the 7th May, 1954, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, has no application to the present case, as the proceeding in respect of the disputed properties which terminated on the 26th April, 1954, by virtue of the order of the Assistant Custodian releasing these properties revived, and the appeal filed against that order made the appeal a continuance of the proceeding which had been started earlier on the 6th April, 1951. 4. The entire proceeding started in the present case was not void, because the initial notice issued under Section 7 of the Act was not illegal, as the defects in the notice pointed out by the petitioner were mere irregularities and not illegalities.

Final Decision: The rule was discharged with costs, as the petitioner had not been able to make out any case for issue of any writ to the opposite party.