The competent Officer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, has no jurisdiction to make orders relating to property that is not composite property.

A.N.Grover, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the orders of the Competent Officer dated 24-10-1956 and of the Appellate Officer dated 26-9-1957, made under the provisions of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, are impugned.

2. It is alleged in the petition that- certain Muslims who are now evacuees had mortgaged their agricultural land with possession measuring 110 bighas odd with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner more than 60 years prior to the enforcement of the aforesaid Act. The petitioner who has been in possession after he succeeded to his predecessor-in-interest received a notice dated 17-4-1954 from the Competent Officer purporting to have been issued under the Act by which he was required to submit his claim in the prescribed form as information had been received that he had an interest in the composite property described in the Schedule and the evacuee interest had to be separated from other interests.

The petitioner filed his claim-petition and appeared before the competent Officer. The point that was raised by him before the aforesaid officer was that the evacuee mortgagors never got the property redeemed within the period prescribed for redemption under Article 148 of the Limitation Act and their right to redeem had become extinct under Section 28 of that Act with the result that the petitioner had become the owner of the property. It was further stated that the property in dispute was no longer composite property and no question of separation of alleged evacuee interest arose.

On 24-10-1956 the competent Officer made an order holding that the mortgage being over 20 years old, the provisions contained in Section 9 (2) of the Act applied and it stood extinguished. Henceforth the property was to vest in the Custodian free from all encumbrances and liabilities. The petitioner filed an appeal under the provisions of the Act which was dismissed by the Appellate Officer in view of some judgment given by him in some other case and the following observations were made.

"It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that if the Custodian holds that as the property has vested in him under Section II of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, he cannot reopen the question, the claimants will have no remedy left, I have specifically provided in my judgment in Custodian V/s. Mst. Gondo, Appeal No. 690 of 1956, that the question must be determined whether the evacuees had any interest in the properties or not. If the Custodian dismisses the applications of the claimants only on the ground that the vesting order under Section 11 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 bars his jurisdiction to determine the rights of the claimants, they may move this court again, when I will consider whether I should review my orders."

This led to the present petition.

3 It has been contended by Mr. H. L. Sarin, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, that the property in dispute had never been declared to be evacuee property, nor had it vested in the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and, therefore, it was not composite property within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act. It is submitted that if it was not composite property, the Competent Officer had no jurisdiction under Section 5 to decide any matter relating to the property in dispute. It is pointed out that in the notice which was sent to the petitioner, dated 17-4-1954 (Annexure A"), all that is stated is as follows:

"Whereas information has been received that you have all interest in the composite property described in the Schedule hereto annexed. And whereas the evacuee interest in the said property is to be separated from other interests ..

In the order of the Competent Officer although it is stated that the declaration by the Custodian that the evacuee has an interest in the property as a mortgagor is binding, it is nowhere stated that any such declaration was e