Gopalji Mehrotra, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and has a sugar factory for the manufacture of sugar. On 28-3-1955 notices were issued by the Assistant Custodian, Saharanpur, under Rule 6 (1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, addressed to 50 persons who were formerly employees in the petitioners' factory requiring them to show cause why orders be not passed declaring them evacuees and all their properties to be taken over under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. Among the properties certain amounts were mentioned as evacuee money alleged to be lying with the Mills to the credit of those evacuees. The total amount was Rs. 4,207/15/-. The petitioner company was also mentioned as an interested person in the notices issued in the names of those evacuees. The amount was claimed to be in respect of bonus payable for the year 1946-47 under a Government Order made in the crushing year 1947-48. The amounts were alleged to have been due to the employees of the petitioner at the time of their alleged migration to Pakistan. The petitioner disputed that any amounts were payable from them to any of the alleged evacuees and their claim, if any, was barred by limitation. An objection was filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Custodian in which a number of points were raised concerning the employees being declared as evacuees and also challenging the fact that any amount was lying with the Mills to the credit of the alleged evacuees and the right of the Custodian to declare that amount as evacuee property. The Assistant Custodian among other issues framed an issue with regard to the question of limitation and also what will be the effect of the amount being held as time barred on the proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The Assistant Custodian held that the question whether the realisation of those amounts was barred by time could not be gone into in these proceedings. If the amount was an evacuee property it had to be declared in these proceedings as such irrespective of whether its recovery was barred by limitation or not. The objections were therefore dismissed by the Assistant Custodian by his order dated 17-9-1955. The petitioner then received a notice dated 3-11-1955 from the Assistant Custodian, Saharanpur, demanding the payment of the said sum by 15-11-1955. It was stated in the notice that if the amount was not paid in time it would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Proceedings were thereafter taken for the recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner. On 16-2-1956 an official of the Custodian's Department came to the petitioner's office but the Managing Director of the petitioner company was out of station. The official then left word that he will come again to attach the property of the petitioner within a few days if the payment of the amount was not made immediately. On these facts the present petition was filed in this court on 5-3-1956 for the following reliefs: (a) A writ in the nature of mandamus to be issued directing the respondents not to recover the said amount of Rs. 4.207/15/- from the petitioner either as arrears of land revenue or by any other coercive process. (b) The proceedings for the realisation of the said amount of Rs. 4,207/15/- as arrears of land revenue be quashed.
(2.) By an order of this Court the realisation of the amount by the Assistant Custodian was stayed meanwhile.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Assistant Custodian, Saharanpur. In the counter-affidavit it is asserted that 50 notices under Section 7 (1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act were issued to 50 persons who were formerly employees in the petitioner's factory asking them to show cause why they should not be declared evacuees and why their properties mentioned in the notices be not declared evacuee properties. The properties which were mentioned in the notices and sought to be declared evacuee properties were certain sums of money lying with the petitioner to the credit of each notices. The petitioner company was mentioned as interested person in the aforesaid notices. The Assistant Custodian, Saharanpur, received credible information that the amount mentioned in each notice stood to the credit of the evacuee in the account books of the petitioner as salary or bonus. In response to the notice issued the petitioner company appeared and disputed the amounts as being payable to any of the alleged evacuees. It was further contended that the claim, if any, was time-barred. The petitioner company filed a written objection before the Assistant Custodian raising several pleas, stating that the alleged amounts were not payable from the petitioner to any of the alleged evacuees and that the claim, if any, was barred by the law of limitation. It is then asserted in the counter-affidavit that at the time of hearing of the proceedings under Section 7 the company kept back its account books, though its Assistant Accountant gave evidence before the Assistant Custodian and admitted that the company kept regular accounts. One of the issues framed by the Assistant Custodian was in the following terms: "Whether the realisation is time-barred. If so, what is the effect of the present proceedings?'' As regards this issue the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) held that the question whether the realisation was time-barred or not could not be gone into in the proceedings under Section 7 as in those proceedings only the title of the evacuee was to be seen and the question of limitation would be an obstacle if the Custodian went to a law court but the position might be different if he effected the recovery of money in the exercise of his powers under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The objections were dismissed and the amounts mentioned in the notices were declared to be evauee properties of the 50 noticees. On 3-11-1955 a notice was sent under Section 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act to the petitioner demanding the payment of the said sum of Rs. 4,207/15/- by 15-11-1955. On 15-11-1955 the petitioner company neither paid the amount nor appeared before the Assistant Custodian to file any objections against the notice under Section 43 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and no payment was ever made by the petitioner company. The proceedings therefore for the recovery of! the said amount as arrears of land revenue have now been taken. On 16-2-1956 the Evacuee Property Manager, Saharanpur, went to the petitioner company's office. He was asked to come on 23-2-1956. He again went to the company's office on 23-2-1956 and he was asked to come on 24-2-1956. On 24-2-1956 ultimately the Manager of the petitioner company refused to make payment. (4) From the brief facts given above it is apparent that there is not much controversy between the parties as regards the facts. That in March 1955 notice was issued under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act for proceedings under Section 7 in which the petitioner was shown as an interested party is not denied. That an objection was filed by the present petitioner in those proceedings on two grounds; firstly, that the amount was not Day-able and secondly that the recovery of the amount was barred by time. The objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Custodian on the ground that in proceedings under Section 7 only the title of the evacuee could be gone into and the question of limitation could only arise when an attempt is made to recover the amount in a court of law. The Assistant Custodian further appears to have been of opinion that no defence of limitation will be available if in the exercise of powers under Administration of Evacuee Property Act the Assistant Custodian took proceedings for the recovery of the amount. Thereafter notice under Section 48 of the Act was given in the following terms: "Whereas an amount of Rs. 4207/15/- is due against you on account of deposits of following Evacuees. You are, therefore, ashed to deposit the above amount by 15-11-1955 with the E. M. P. Shri Hansraj Sondhi, failing which amount will be recovered as arrears of land revenue." Thereafter details of the amount were given in this notice. Proceedings were taken for the recovery of the amount after the failure of the petitioner to pay up the amount within the specified time mentioned in the notice.;