- (1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal are that the land in dispute was under Muslim Occupancy Tenants before 1943 when they are alleged to have relinquished and surrendered their rights in favour of the petitioner appellants. The land in dispute was declared evacuee. The petitioners sought the restoration of the land in dispute from the Custodian General in view of the above facts. The Custodian General released the land in favour of the petitioners. However, the Financial Commissioner in exercise of powers under section 54 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act set aside the order of the Custodian General inter alia holding that the petitioners had forged a letter dated July 7, 1947 by the Muslim Occupancy Tenants relinquishing their occupancy rights. The Financial Commissioner discarded the forged letter, as after March, 1947 no Muslim could relinquish his right in the property. The learned Single Judge has refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for interfering with the order of the learned Financial Commissioner and found that the property had been rightly vested in the Custodian General.
(2.) THE only contention raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is that the order of the Custodian General releasing the land in dispute cannot be set aside by the Financial Commissioner in exercise of powers under section 54 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. Section 54 reads as under : "54. Power of Central Government to take action with regard to evacuee property. The Central Government may, for the purpose of regulating the administration of any property which has vested in the Custodian under the provisions of this Act, pass such order or direct such action to be taken in relation thereto as, in its opinion, the circumstances of the case require and as is not inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. "
(3.) THERE is no dispute that the property in question did vest in the Custodian as an evacuee property. However, the same was released on the basis of a forged relinquishing letter produced before the Custodian General. Section 28 of the Act confers a finality to the order of Custodian General from being questioned in any manner by way of appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceeding. Reading of sections 28 and 54 harmoniously, the obvious result discernible is that the finality to the order has been attached so as to protect it from being challenged in any Court in appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceeding. There is no embargo which section 28 puts on the powers of the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 54 authorising the Central Government regulating the Administration of any property which has vested in the Custodian under the provisions of the Act There is no dispute that the property in dispute did vest in the Custodian and it is only on account of the release order that the property was taken out of the compensation pool. The Central Government was competent to regulate and interfere with the property if in the opinion of the authorities the property had been released on account of any fraudulent act committed by the person claiming the property The fraudulent order obtained shall be a void order and can be set aside or declared to be so.;