Ranawat J,.—This is an application by Manohar Lal Vaishya of Pahari, District Bharatpur, against the Custodian Rajasthan, Naib-Deputy Custodian, Bharatpur, and Tehsildar, Pahari, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts alleged by the petitioner are that he purchased 46 maunds and 8 seers of sarson from one Sheo Singh Meo on the 14th day of the dark half of the month of Asarh in Samwat year 2004. and paid Rs. 800/- to him on the same day. Rs. 5 were paid at the time of settling the transaction, while the balance, it is said, was paid two or three days later. Sheo Singh left India, and went to Pakistan. The then Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bharatpur, by his order dated 1st March, 1949, acting on a report of the Naib-Tehsildar, Pahari, ordered the petitioner to deposit with him Rs. 831/9/- being the price of the aforesaid sarson, which had been purchased by the petitioner from Sheo Singh, who was an evacuee, without allowing any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. The petitioner came to know about this order when a demand for the payment was made from him by the Collector as arrears of land revenue. After the petitioner came to know about the order, he moved a review application before the Custodian, but it was rejected. The petitioner approached the Custodian General of Evacuee Property in exercise of his revi-sional powers against the orders of the Custodian, Rajasthan, but unsuccessfully. The Custodian General confirmed the order of the Custodian on the 21st of July, 1951. The petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Custodian in ordering a recovery of the price of sarson purchased by him from an evacuee under the provisions of the Matsya Evacuees (Administration of Property) Ordinance, 1948 (Ordinance No. 11 of 1948), (hereinafter to be referred to as the Ordinance), specially because no enquiry was made by the Custodian himself before making the order, and because the Custodian proceeded to act on the report made by the Naib-Tehsildar of Pahari. It is further alleged that if the Custodian was of the opinion that the petitioner was liable to pay the amount of the price of sarson purchased by him, his remedy lay by way of filing a suit against the petitioner rather than by proceeding to recover the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue. The fundamental rights of the petitioner under Art. 19 of the Constitution of India are, it is alleged, infringed by the action of the respondents. The cause of action, it is stated, arose on the 14th of October, 1950, when the respondent No. 1 asked the Deputy Custodian, Bharatpur to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, and when the respondent No. 2 ordered the respondent No. 3 to recover the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue, or in the alternative, on the 21st of July, 1950, when the Custodian General of India rejected the revision application of the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner is—

(1) that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the orders of the Deputy Custodian, Bharatpur, dated 1st March, 1949, 14th October, 1950, and 19th December, 1950;

(2) that a writ of prohibition be issued against the respondents restraining them from realising the amount of Rs. 831/9/- from the petitioner; and

(3) that the costs of this petition be allowed to the petitioner from the respondents.

3. A written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 by the Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property, Jaipur, and it was denied that the petitioner had ever paid the price of the sarson purchased by him from Sheo Singh who was an evacuee. It was also stated that the order of the Custodian of the 1st of March, 1949, was not without jurisdiction. The amount being due to the Custodian could be realised, it was asserted, in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949. It was, however, admitted that the amount of Rs. 800/- and odd was being recovered from the petitioner as arrears of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document