WANCHOO, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Jaimal and others under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Their case was that they were given patta of 218 bighas and 11 biswas of land in village Khatoli on payment of certain money in premium. They remained in possession for five years. Thereafter the Tehsildar along with two other persons who were called members of local allotment committee ordered their ejectment. The land was said to have been abandoned by certain Muslims in 1947 who migrated to Pakistan. The applicant's case is that the Tehsildar and the Members of the Local Committee had no jurisdiction to pass orders of ejectment and this Court should therefore interfere.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel who argued this case for the applicants was not quite sure whether the applicants were owners of this property. , having purchased it in an auction sale. In the application, however, it was said that the applicants were Pattedars of the land for which they had paid Rs. 2000/- as premium and the land was stated to be evacuee property. We are of opinion that if the land in not evacuee property and the applicants have become owners of it by purchase, they have their remedy open in an ordinary Civil Court and sec. 46 of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950, will not come if their way if the property has been sold to them by the Custodian or Assistant Custodian. If the property is evacuee property, the question arises whether we should interfere with the orders of the Tehsildar who is ex-officio Assistant Custodian for his Tehsil. LEARNED Counsel urges that the order of the Local Allotments Committee is entirely without jurisdiction and we should interfere. LEARNED Government Advocate however, contends that the other persons associated with the Tehsildar are merely advisors and that the order is by the Tehsildar as the ex-officio Assistant Custodian. This seems to us to be the correct position. The next question is whether we should permits the applicants to come to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India direct from the orders of Assistant Custodian or whether there is any provision in the Evacuee Property Act, by which persons in the position of present applicants can get relief by appeal or revision. We find that under sec. 26 of the Evacuee Property Act the order of an Assistant Custodian is open to revision by the Custodian on the application of a party and he can send for the record and satisfy himself as to the legality or property of any orders passed by an Assistant Custodian. Then there is sec. 27 of the Evacuee Property Act which gives powers of revision to the Custodian General and that officer can exercise that power either on his own motion or on an application made to him. If, therefore, the applicants were aggrieved by the order of the Tehsildar as ex-officio Assistant Custodian they should have moved the Custodian under sec. 26 of and asked for a revision of the order. If they had failed to get redress from the Custodian they should have moved the Custodian General under sec. 27 It is only when they fail to get redress even from the Custodian General, they might come to this Court and if they can make out a case for interference we shall do so. But as things are at present, we are not prepared to intervene at this stage in the exercise of our extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. We, therefore, dismiss the application with costs to the Collector. .;