Jagannadhadas, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property dated 20-5-1953, revising an order of the Additional Custodian of East Punjab, Delhi, dated 20-3-1952. The two questions raised before us on the facts and circumstances, to be stated are (1) whether the Custodian-General had the revisional power which he purported to exercise, and (2) was the order of the Custodian-General on its merits such as to call for interference by this Court.
(2.) The appellant before us, one Mrs. Indira Shohanlal, is a displaced person from Lahore. She was the owner of a house at Lahore known as 5, Danepur Road, Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon of West Pakistan owned 766 Bighas of agricultural land in a village called Punjab Khore within the State of Delhi. An oral exchange is said to have taken place between these two, of the said properties, on 10-10-1947. In pursuance of that exchange Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon is said to have taken possession of the Danepur Road House. The appellant is also said to have been put in possession of the said agricultural lands in Punjab Khore presumably by way of attornment of tenants who were in actual cultivating possession of the lands. Under S. 5-A of the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (East Punjab Act 14 of 1947), as amended in 1948 and applied to the State of Delhi, such a transaction required confirmation by the Custodian. In compliance with this section the appellant made an application on 23-2-1948, to the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property (Rural), Delhi, for confirmation of the above transaction of exchange and of the consequent transfer to her of the property in agricultural land. In view of certain rules which came into force later and which prescribed that the application was to be in a set form furnishing certain particulars the appellant filed an amended application dated 14-8-1948, furnishing the required particulars. This application was not disposed of by the Additional Custodian, for reasons not clear on the record, until 20-3-1952. On that date he passed an order confirming the exchange. Meanwhile, however, a proposal was put up to the Additional Custodian by his Revenue Assistant to allot agricultural lands of the village Punjab Khore, including those covered by this exchange, to a number of refugee cultivators. The proposal was approved by the Additional Custodian on 12-6-1949. In pursuance thereof a detailed allotment was made to twenty-six individual allottees on 29-10-1949. There is a report of the Rehabilitation Patwari dated 27-2-1950, on the record showing that the allottees entered into possession of the land and cultivated their respective lands and settled down in the village. After the order confirming the exchange was passed by the Additional Custodian on 20-3-1952, the appellant filed an application on 5-5-1952, asking to be placed in possession and for a warrant of delivery of possession to be issued against the various allottees and tenants of the land. The Naib Tehsildar recommended that possession may be given to the appellant and that the Patwari may be informed accordingly to take the necessary action in the matter. But it does not appear from the record whether this was done, or whether possession was in fact delivered. At this stage a notice under S. 27, Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Central; Act 31 of 1950), appears to have - been issued to the appellant by the Custodian-General to show cause why the order of the Additional Custodian dated 20-3-1952 confirming the exchange and the further orders dated 20 and 28-7-1952, sanctioning, mutation and other consequential and incidental orders made in connection therewith be not set aside. This notice appears to have been issued asking the appellant to show cause on 4-5-1953. The case was adjourned to 12-5-1953, at the request of counsel for the appellant and thereafter a more detailed notice dated 14-5-1953, was issued setting out the various grounds on which the previous orders were sought to be set aside. The learned Custodian-General passed the order now under appeal on 20-5-1953 setting aside the order of confirmation. He directed the Custodian to decide the case after giving notice to all those who might be affected by the confirmation of this transaction. As the earlier part of his order shows, the reference to the persons affected was to those who were allotted the lands in question by virtue of the order of the Additional Custodian of the year 1949 above referred to.
(3.) To appreciate the first question that has been raised as to the validity of the exercise of revisional powers by the Custodian-General on the above facts, it is necessary to set out the course of the relevant legislative measures from time to time.;