The Custodian has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether certain property is or is not evacuee property, even if there is a claim of adverse possession.

S.S.Dulat, J.

1. Civil Writs Nos. 244 and 245 of 1954 are connected and have been referred by a Single Judge of this Court for decision,

2. The dispute concerns 7 houses bearing Nos. 578 to 584 and situated in Lakkar Bazar, Ludhiana. Gur Parshad, who is the petitioner before us, was in possession of these houses and he sold two of them to Atma Ram in December, 1947 and sold the other five to different persons about two years later. In February, 1951, one Ram Par-kash gave information to the Assistant Custodian that these houses were evacuee property. He alleged that the houses originally belonged Ho two Muslim ladies and they had been mortgaged in 1889 with Narain Dass and Lachhman Dass, and that the Muslim owners had become evacuees on partition in 1947 and thus the equity of redemption had vested in the Custodian. Gur Parshad in opposition to these allegations claimed that he and Ms ancestors had been in possession of these houses ever since 1926 and their possession was adverse to the real owner, if any, and by lapse of time his title to the property was perfected. The Assistant Custodian dealing with this complaint started some enquiries but later came to the conclusion that the matter ought to be dealt with by the Competent Officer appointed under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act 1951, and on this view he sent the case to the Competent Officer. That Officer, however, on considering the matter came to the conclusion that he was not competent to decide whether the Custodian did Or did not have any interest in the properties and that such a question could be settled by the Custodion and he, therefore, returned the case to the Custodian. Against this order of the Competent Officer an appeal was taken to the Appellate Authority under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, and the Appellate Authority held by order dated 28-4-1953 that the Competent Officer could decide the question himself and therefore remanded the case for decision to the Competent Officer. Civil Writ No. 245 is directed against that order of the Appellate Authority and the petitioners claim in this respect as that the question whether the properties were or were not evacuee property in the sense that the Custodian had or had not any interest in these properties could not be settled by the Competent Offi- cer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act.

3. The matter, however, did not rest there because Gur Parshad himself approached the Assistant Custodian and asked that the properties be deleted from the list of composite property. The Assistant Custodian agreed and made an order accordingly, Ram Parkash informant, however filed, a revision petition against that order which was heard by the Assistant Custodian-General and that officer held a detailed enquiry into the matter and on the evidence before him came to the conclusion that Gur Parshads claim was unfounded and that the houses in question were evacuee property aa the Custodian had interest in those properties in the form of the equity of redemption. This Order was passed on 24-4-1954, and Civil Writ No. 244 of 1954 is directed against that order the contention being that even the Custodian was not competent to decide the questions which he did.

4. As far as Civil Writ No. 245 of 1954 is concerned, it as clear that events subsequent to the impugned order make the writ petition pointless. The order made by the Appellate Authority was under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act and it amounted to a direction to the Competent Officer to proceed to determine the question whether the disputed properties were or were not evacuee pro-perty. That officer, however, never did so, and the question has actually been determined by the Custodian. To urge therefore that the Competent Officer had no jurisdiction to act in the matter is futile for the simple reason that the Competent Officer has not in fact done so.

5. There remains the other Writ No. 244 of 1954. Mr. Mahajan in support of it contends tha