The property of an insolvent, which has vested in the official receiver under the Provincial Insolvency Act, cannot be declared to be evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.

Grover, J.

1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been placed for disposal before a Division Bench in view of the order made by Bishan Narain, J., on 30th July, 1958, expressing the opinion that an important question of law, which affects the interests of a large number of people was involved.

2. The facts may be shortly stated. A person of the name of Daulat Ram Surana, carried on business, at Delhi, as a Jeweller in the name of Sardar Singh, Daulat Ram. It appears that he got heavily involved in debts and conveyed some properties to his relatives On 14th March, 1950 Nanak Chand and certain other creditors filed a petition for insolvency against the firm and Daulat Ram Surana. On 17th June, 1950, both the firm and Daulat Ram Surana were declared insolvents and the petitioner, who is 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 immovable property out of the estate of the insolvents, the sale being fixer for 18th August, 1951. Two days prior to that on 16th August, 1951, the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property issued a notice under section 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. 1950, to Daulat Ram Surana and other interested persons to show cause as to why he should not be declared as an evacuees under section 2(d)(I) of the Act.

The petitioner on coming to know of the aforesaid proceedings appeared before the Assistant Custodian and raised objections to the property of Daulat Ram Surana being declared as evacuee property. On 15th February, 1954, the Assistant Custodian made an order declaring Daulat Ram Suraba, an evacuee and his property, evacuee property. This order was affirmed by the Authorised Deputy Custodian on 4th May, 1955, and a revision filed by the petitioner to the Custodian-General failed on 12th August, 1955. The present petition was then instituted impugning the orders made by the aforesaid authorities.

3. The first point that was sought to be raised before us by Shri Visvanathan Sastri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, related to the validity of the notice issued under section 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. It was, however, not ultimately pressed and the learned counsel confined his submissions largely to two other matters. It was firstly contended that there was a speaking error in the order of the Deputy Custodian-General relating to what he called point No. 2. Under that point the Deputy Custodian-General considered the question whether Daulat Ram a person could be declared an evacuee only if he had left this country after the first day of March, 1947, on account of the setting up of the Dominions of Indian and Pakistan or on account of Civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances.

The suggestion is that admittedly Daulat Ram Surana had a Muslim mistress, while he was residing in Delhi from whom he had some children. The muslim lady and her children left for Pakistan and Daulat Ram also went there in order to join them and it was not on account of the partition of the country or fear of any disturbances etc., that he left for Pakistan. The Deputy Custodian General examined the material on the record and the relevant circumstances, which had been established and came to a conclusion on a question of fact that Daulat Ram Surana had become an evacuee. It is not possible to hold that there is any apparent or speaking error in that part of the order nor can this Court in these proceedings decide the correctness or otherwise of findings on questions of fact arrived at by the officers of the Custodian Department.

4. The second matter, however, that has been agitated deserves more serious attention. It is submitted that even if it be assumed as was found that Daulat Ram Surana had become an evacuee sometime in February, 1950, his property could not be declared to be evacuee property after it had vested in the petitione