- (1.)This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Deputy Custodian-General of Evacuee Property, India, dated February 1, 1958, setting aside the order dated June 6, 1949, passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Patiala, and remanding the case for enquiry.
(2.)The facts lie in a small compass and may be briefly stated. One Defedar Niranjan Singh, the first appellant herein, owned houses Nos. 915 and 916 situate in the town of Patiala. During the latter part of 1948, the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Patiala, took possession of the said houses under the provisions of the Patiala Evacuees (Administration of Property) Ordinance of Samvat 2004 (No. IX of 2004) (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance XI of 2004), on the ground that they were evacuee properties. On January 27, 1949, Dafedar Niranjan Singh filed a claim petition before the said Custodian alleging that the said properties belonged to him by inheritance. The Custodian by order dated June 6, 1949, allowed the claim and released the said properties. This order was communicated to the Assistant Custodian on June 7, 1949, and pursuant to that order the said houses were released. On June 9, 1955, the first appellant sold a part of the said properties of Major Bhagwant Singh, the second appellant herein, for Rs. 6,000/-. On June 21, 1949. Ordinance IX of 2004 was repealed by the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Ordinance No. XIII of Samvat 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance No. XIII of 2006) which was in its turn repealed by the Patiala and East Punjab State Union Ordinance No. XVII of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance No. XVII of 2006). On October 18, 1949, Ordinance No. XVII of 2006 was also repealed by Central Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949, under which for the first time the office of Custodian-General was created. This Central Ordinance was replaced by the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (No XXXI of 1950). The said Act was amended from time to time. Nothing turns upon the said amendments in the present appeal. On December 24, 1955.
i.e., more than six years after the order of the Custodian, the Litigation Inspector of Evacuee Properties filed an application before the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Patiala for review of the order of the Custodian dated June 6, 1949. During the pendency of that application, the powers of the Custodian and the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property of review and revision under S. 26 of the Act were taken away by the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act XCI of 1956. On April 2, 1957, the Additional Custodian submitted the case to the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property to enable him to take action suo motu under S. 27 of the Act. On May 24, 1957, the Deputy Custodian-General, to whom the powers of the custodian-General in that behalf had been delegated, issued notice to the appellants to show cause why the order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property. Patiala, dated June 6, 1949, be not revised. On February 1, 1958, after hearing the parties, the Deputy Custodian-General, set aside the order of the Custodian dated June 6, 1949, and remanded the case to the Custodian for further enquiry. The present appeal by special leave was directed against the said order.

(3.)Learned counsel for the appellants raised before us the following three points : (1) The deeming provisions of the repealing Ordinance and Acts culminating in S. 58(3) of the Act apply only to things done or action taken by the Custodian in exercise of his administrative powers and not to orders made by him in exercise of his judicial powers. (2) The order passed by the Custodian under Ordinance IX of 2004 cannot be deemed to be an order passed under the Act, as the chain of fiction was broken when Ordinance No. XIII of 2006 was issued. (3) Section 58(3) of the Act expressly saves the previous operation of Ordinance XXVII of 1949 or any corresponding law, and, therefore, the orders that had become final under the said Ordinance could not be revised under S. 27 of the Act.