This is an appeal preferred by the Custodian Evacuees Property against the order passed by the Custodian General on 13-11-1956.

(2) On behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection is raised that the Custodian, being not an aggrieved person is not competent to file the present appeal against the order of the Custodian General.

(3) In order to appreciate the preliminary objection it is necessary to set out the facts, which have given rise to this appeal. The House-boat No. 555 "Miss England" was notified as an evacuee property on 23-8-1952 by the Custodian and Ahad Nagu respondent in the present appeal was ordered to surrender the possession of the house-boat to the Custodian. Against this order Ahad Nagu appealed before the Custodian General who accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Custodian and also the notification by which the houseboat was declared as an evacuee property. The Custodian has come up in appeal against the order of the Custodian General.

(4) A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent that the appeal does not lie inasmuch as the Custodian is not a person aggrieved with-the meaning of those words occurring in S. 30 of the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 2006. Section 30 gives any person aggrieved a right to appeal against an order made under S 8, S. 14 or S. 25 by a Deputy or an Assistant Custodian to the Custodian and to the Custodian General where the original or appellate order has been passed by the Custodian and Additional Custodian or an authorized Deputy Custodian and to the High Court against the order of the Custodian General provided that no appeal lies to the High Court against the concurrent findings of the Custodian and the Custodian General.

(5) In Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, AIR 1952 SC 319 (A), it has been held that the person aggrieved as occurs in S. 24 (which corresponds to S. 30 of our Act) is a person who is given a right to raise a contest in a certain matter and his contention is negatived. He is certainly aggrieved by the order disallowing his contention. The meaning of the term person aggrieved was explained in Ex-parte Official Receiver Read, In re, (1887) 19 QBD 174 (B). It was there determined that any person who makes an application to a Court for a decision, or any person who is brought before a Court to submit to a decision, is, if the decision goes against him, thereby a person aggrieved by that decision,

(6) The Custodian who is the appellant In this case cannot be considered to be a person aggrieved simply because his order has been overset by the Custodian General. The Custodian under S. 8 of the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act has to determine the claim put forward by any interested person in the property notified under S. 6 of the said Act as an evacuee property. He may, after enquiry, accept or reject the claim put forward by any interested person.

If the Custodian disallows the claim put forward by a person that person being person aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal under S. 30 of the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act to the Custodian General. The Custodian General under his powers of appeal under S. 30 and under powers of general superintendence vested in him under S. 4 of the Act may overset the order of the Custodian or confirm it. The custodian cannot make a grievance of the fact that his order is reversed.

(7) Section 4 cl. (2) which reads as under: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all Custodians Additional, Deputy or Assistant Custodians of evacuee property shall discharge the duties imposed on them by or under this Act under the general superintendence and control of the Custodian General."

gives the Custodian General powers of general superintendence and" control over the Custodian and if the Custodian General in discharge of the powers vested in him modifies or cancels the order of the Custodian the latter cannot be considered to be a person aggrieved within the me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document