S.C.Mathur, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against an order passed by the Assistant Custodian General Cum Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, U. P. and Bihar passed in two revisions, one filed under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act (Act No. 44 of 1954) and the other filed under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Act No. 31 of 1950). The petition has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated. The dispute in the petition relates to certain plots which admittedly originally belonged to Khurshed Hasan and Syed Mohd. Mujtaba. These two persons executed sale deeds on 31-10-1947, 12-4-1948 and 15-7-1948 in favour of Beni Ram. father of opposite parties 3 and 4 and Ganga Ram, opposite party No. 2. After execution of these sale deeds the said transferors migrated to Pakistan. On 16-2-1953 the Assistant Custodian issued notice under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Evacuee Property Act) to Khurshed Hasan and Syed Mohammed Mujtaba requiring them to show cause why they should not be declared evacuees under Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2 (d) of the said Act and the plots in dispute be not declared their property. This notice was contested by Beni Ram who pleaded title to the said plots in dispute on the basis of the sale deeds hereinbefore mentioned. Beni Ram did not dispute the migration of Khurshed Hasan and Syed Mohammad Mujtaba. On 24-4-1053 Assistant Custodian (Judicial) Faizabad passed order declaring Khurshed Hasan and Syed Mohammad Mujtaba (hereinafter referred to as evacuees) evacuees and the plots in dispute were declared as their property. A copy of this order is Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed by Ganga Ram on behalf of opposite parties 2 to 4. After passing of this order an application was made by Beni Ram and Ganga Ram under Section 40 of the Act for confirmation of the sale deeds executed by the evacuees. This application was allowed by order dated 24-9-1953. A copy of the order is Annexure-B to the said counter-affidavit. While allowing the application the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) held that the sale deeds were for adequate consideration and were, normal inasmuch as the evacuees migrated to Pakistan after almost five years from the date of the execution of the deeds.
(2.) Thereafter the plots in dispute were dealt with by the Managing Officer under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rehabilitation Act) and he put the same to public auction on 2-11-1968. At this public auction the petitioner's bid was accepted and accordingly the auction, was knocked down in her favour. Sale certificate was issued to the petitioner on 15-11-1968. In May 1969 Ganga Ram and the heirs of Beni Ram filed the revisions hereinbefore referred to. A copy of the revision petition is Annexure-I to writ petition. Through this revision petition opposite parties 2 to 4 asserted that in view of the order of confirmation passed on 24-9-1950 the property ceased to be evacuee property and it could not be sold by the Managing Officer. The auction in favour of the petitioner was alleged to be collusive. On this Basis opposite parties 2 to 4 asserted their own title to the plots in dispute. It was prayed that the property may be released as non-evacuee property. By his order dated 3-1-1970 opposite party No. 1 disposed of both the revisions preferred by opposits parties 2 to 4. A copy of the order passed by opposite party No. 1 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It appears that before the opposite party No. 1 it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that sale deeds executed in favour of Beni Ram and Ganga Ram were contrary to the provision of U. P. Tenancy Act and were, therefore, invalid and they conveyed no title to them and, therefore, they were fit to be ignored. On this plea of the petitioner opposite party No. 1 directed the departmental counsel to examine the matter and if he found that the plea could be taken up in suo motu revision he should fake up the matter. This is how opposite party No. 1 disposed of the revision filed under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.
(3.) Taking up the revision under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, opposite party No. 1 observed that till the order dated 24-9-1953 confirming the sale deeds executed in favour of Beni Ram and Ganga Ram were set aside the property could not be treated as evacuee property and, therefore, the sale in favour of the petitioner was illegal. It was also observed that the transfer of the plots in dispute in favour of the petitioner was done in violation of Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules. The petitioner has challenged the above order on the following grounds :- (1) A revision under Section 24 of the Displaced persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act could be filed only against an order but the revision preferred by opposite parties 2 to 4 was not directed against any order and the same was, therefore incompetent and as such opposite party No. 1 acquired no jurisdiction to decide the same. (2) Against the auction held in favour of the petitioner opposite parties 2 to 4 approached the Authorised Settlement Commissioner and this proved that the said opposite parties themselves treated the property in dispute to be pool property and they were, therefore, estopped from saying that it was not so. It was amplified by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the forum under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act was available only to such persons as accepted the property in dispute to be pool property. (3) The Petitioner had raised the plea that the sale deed in favour of opposite parties 2 to 4 was hit by the provisions of U, P. Tenancy Act and was, therefore, invalid and this question had to be decided by opposite party No. 1 himself and he could not delegate this function to the departmental counsel. It was amplified by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this delegation amounted to abdication of jurisdiction by opposite party No. 1. (4) There was no violation of Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules and the finding recorded by opposite party No. 1 is patently incorrect. (5) In case opposite parties 2 to 4 challenged the auction held in favour of the petitioner they could do so only by taking recourse to the procedure pre-scribed under Rule 92 of the Displaced Persons Rules, for cancellation of the sale, and the procedure of revision adopted by opposite parties 2 to 4 was incompetent. (6) Mere passing of order under Section 40 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act did not divest the property of the character of evacuee property which it acquired under the vesting order passed under Section 7 of the said Act. It was amplified by the learned counsel for the petitioner that until the order passed under Section 7 was cancelled the property remained evacuee property and could be sold under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act.;