- (1.) THIS appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent raises the question whether the learned single Judge was justified in directing the Custodian of Evacuee Property to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard before issuing a warrant of recovery against him.
(2.) OWING to the communal disturbances which broke out in the year 1947 a large number of muslims belonging to the erstwhile State of Kapurthala migrated to Pakistan, leaving their property behind them. A brik-kiln, an oil engine, 115 tons of coal, 50 logs of wood, 200 tiles and a large number of bricks which had been left by one of these Muslims were taken into possession by the State authorities. On the 27th October 1947 Hazara Singh petitioner who claimed to be the President of the Co-operative Society of Nadala, presented an application in which he stated that the brick-kiln etc, were the property of a co-operative society of which he was Chairman and that these articles should be delivered to him. On the 13th December, 1947 the Chief Minister directed that these articles be made over to the co-operative Society, and on the 19th December, 1947 Hazara Singh executed a receipt in which he acknowledged having received a brick-kiln, an oil engine etc, from the Chief Engineer of the kapurthala State.
(3.) ON the 22nd Jund 1950 the Assistant Custodian issued a notice to Hazara Singh to shown cause why the property which was handed over to him should not be declared to be evacuee property. The petitioner appeared before the Assistant Custodian and claimed the property on behalf of the Co-operative Society of Nadala, but he was unable to substantiate his allegations either in regard to the existence of the Co-operative Society or in regard to the articles in question being the property of the said Society. He failed to produce the books of account before the Assistant Custodian and later failed to appear before the said officer. On the 29th December, 1950 the Assistant Custodian declared the property in question to be evacuee property and his order was firmed by the Custodian and later by the Deputy Custodian-General. A warrant of attachment was then issued to the Tehsildar of Kapurthala requiring him to recover a sum of Rs. 39,570/- on account of the price of articles which had been entrusted to Hazara Singh. On the 18th October 1955 the latter presented a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in which he alleged that the entire proceedings declaring the property to be evacuee property as also the proceedings by which the value of the property had been fixed at a sum of Rs. 39,570/- were void and of no effect. The learned Single Judge before whom this petition came up for hearing, came to the conclusion that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to appear before the assistant Custodian when the value of the property in dispute was being assessed by him. He accordingly allowed the petition, set aside the orders which had been passed against the petitioner and directed the Custodian to recover the value of the property from the petitioner after following the procedure prescribed by law. The petitioner is dissatisfied with this order and has come to this Court in appeal.;