The Custodian of Evacuee Property did not have the power to determine disputed questions, particularly of time-barred debts, and could not order the recovery of such debts.

Kapur, J.

1. This is a petition for the issue of an appropriate writ against the opposite party for quashing the order calling upon the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,280/-/6. This order was passed on the 15th October and 10th November, 1951 by the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Amritsar.

2. Before the 21st June 1951 a munib of the Custodian Department went through the account books of the petitioners and found that a sum of Rs. 5,280/-/6 was due by the petitioners to certain evacuees. On the 21st June 1951 a notice was issued to the petitioners to deposit the amount within a week. An application was then filed by the petitioners in the office of the Assistant Custodian, Amritsar, in which it was alleged that this sum of money was not due to any evacuees, that the amount had become barred by time and that the Custodian had no right to recover the same. It was alleged that one of the evacuees had stood surety with the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. In August 1951 the petitioners were called upon to produce documentary proof but they requested for further time as they had sent away their books to some place outside Amritsar due to panic in that town, but this request was not granted, and on the 15th October, 1951 the Assistant Custodian, Amritsar, passed the order complained against.

3. By an order dated the 10th November, 1951 the petitioners were told that their objections had been considered and rejected and they were called upon to deposit the money within a week. The petitioners then took an appeal to the Additional Custodian, Jullundur. They also produced before him two letters purporting to be from Abdul Ghani, one of the evacuees, asking the petitioners to advance Rs. 5,000/- to Walishah Gulamhussain as loan on his security. The appeal was decided by an order, dated the 25th February, 1952, and on the question of limitation the Additional Custodian relied on a judgment of the Custodian General in --M/s. Birbaldas Tekchand v. Authorised Deputy Custodian, Punjab, and held against the petitioners. The above-mentioned amount is now being demanded from the petitioners. In their petition several objections have been raised by the petitioners as to the legality of the order.

4. Most of the allegations are admitted but it is denied that the petitioners were not given a proper hearing. It is also pleaded that by a notification dated the 3rd March 1948 the Custodian assumed control of all evacuee property and as no objection was raised by the petitioners it could not now be contended that the debt in dispute was not evacuee property. It was further pleaded that according to sections 13 and 48 of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the amount was due and recoverable and that the Custodian was empowered under the Act to determine the amount and to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. Other pleas are not necessary for the purposes of decision of this case.

5. Mr. Grover has taken us through the scheme of the Act. Section 2(i) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, hereinafter termed the Act, defines property to mean "property of any kind" including any right or interest in such property.

6. Section 4 provides that the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being In force.

7. Section 7 deals with notification of evacuee property and prescribes the manner in which it has to be determined whether any property is or is not evacuee property. Section 8 is the vesting section and it provides that any property which is declared to be evacuee property shall be deemed to have vested in the Custodian, and Section 8 (2) says that any property which had vested in the Custodian under any previous law shall be deemed to have vested in the Custodian under this section.

8. Section 9 gives to the Custodian the power to take possession of evacuee property vested in him. But this sectio