Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Barkatali under Art. 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in connection with proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (No. XXXI) of 1950(hereinafter called the Act).

2. The case of the applicant is that he received notice, dated the 9lh September, 1950, from the Assistant Costodian, Pali, under sec. 7 of the Act requiring him to appear in person in the office of the Assistant Custodian at 10 A.M., failing which the case would be decided against him. The applicant put in appearance on the date fixed. Thereafter, the case was postponed and was dealt with by one Mr. M. R. Dhariwal who is Naib Tehsil-dar. This gentleman declared by an order, dated 24th October, 1950, certain share in the property to be evacuee property. The applicant want in appeal to the Custodian Rajasthan. This appeal was partly allowed, and the Custodian declared one-eigth share of Niaz Ali, who was held to be an evacuee, to be evacuee property. But this related to only seven properties, and the rest of the order of the Assistant Custodian was set aside. Thereupon, the applicant filed a revision before the Custodian General who dismissed it. The applicant then filed a review application before the Costodian General, and that was also dismissed in February, 1952. Thereafter, the present application was filed in April, 1952.

3. The applicantss case is two fold. In the first place, it is urged that as Mr. Dhariwal was a Naib Tehsildar, and was never invested with the powers of an assistant Custodian, his order was without jurisdiction, and the subsequent proceedings would also be without jurisdiction((a) By a notification dated 18th Sept., 1950, published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 30th Sept , 1950, Mr. Mul Raj Dhariwal, Naib Tehsildar, Pali, was appointed Assistant Custodian. Evidently this fact was not brought to the notice of the Bench. Though this slip is vital to the decision in the case, the impugned order is equally invalid on the ground of defective notice. —Editor) The second point,that is urged, is that the notice issued under sec. 7 of the Act was not in the form prescribed by the Rules, and therefore the Assistant Custodian did not lay the foundation of his jurisdiction in this case, and all proceedings taken on a notice like the one issued on the 9th September, 1950, were without jurisdiction.

4. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State. The facts alleged by the applicant are not disputed. But it is contended that the application should be dismissed on the following grounds—

(1) that the office of the Custodian General of evacuee property is permanently located in New Delhi outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore this Court cannot issue any writ to him.

(2) As the applicant did not challenge the order of the Assistant Custodian before the Custodian or the Custodian General on the two grounds that he is urging in this court, he is not entitled to get any relief from this Court.

(3) That there has been delay in the predentation of the present application.

(4) That the property of the applicant has not been declared evacuee property, but only the property of Niazali, and therefore the applicant not being aggrieved is not entitled to maintain the writ application.

5. We shall first consider the points raised on behalf of the applicant. It is first contended that Shri Dhariwal, who passed the order dated 24th October, 1950, was only a Naib Tehsildar, and was never authorised to act as Assistant Custodian of evacuee property, as such his order is without jurisdiction (a) It does appear from the copy of the order which has been filed that though Shri Dhariwal has noted under his signature that he is Assistant Custodian of evacuee property, the order begins with the following words—

"Copy of order of Naib Tehsildar, pali."

It is admitted on behalf of the State that Tehsildars were appointed ex-officio Assistant Custodians by notification no. D-1229-1/RR/49 d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document