- (1.) THESE are eleven applications under Article 226 of the Constitution by various persons challenging the taking of proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee property Act against the applicants. We shall dispose them of by one judgment as a common point of law is raised in them.
(2.) IT is not necessary to set out the facts of each case separately. It is enough to say generally that the case against the applicants was that they had left India for pakistan in 1947 after the partition. They had certain lands in India; but these lands were restored to them in 1948 when they came back to India. In 1951, however, the Patwari of their village reported to the Assistant Custodian, ganganagar, that the applicants had gone to Pakistan. On this, proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (No. 31 of 1950), hereinafter called the Act, were taken against the applicants and their property was declared evacuee property ex parte. In 1952 the applicants made an application to the Assistant Custodian to the effect that they had not migrated to pakistan, but had merely left for the neighbouring villages on account of famine. They, therefore, prayed that the ex parte orders passed against them be set aside on proof of their assertion. The Assistant Custodian rejected these applications in June 1953. Thereupon there were appeals to the Custodian who decided them on 29-1-,1954 and remanded the case for fresh decision. Thereafter fresh notices were issued by the Assistant custodian, Ganganagar. He came to the conclusion in August 1955 that the applicants had not migrated to Pakistan. He, however, did not give any decision and submitted the papers to the Custodian, evacuee Property Rajasthan for orders. The Custodian returned the papers to the assistant Custodian for deciding the case on merits. Thereupon the Assistant custodian declared the lands of the applicants as evacuee property on the 29-91956. The applicants again appealed, to the Custodian of Evacuee Property. Their appeals were decided by the Authorised Deputy Custodian in October and november 1956. The Authorised Deputy Custodian held that the notices issued to the applicants were not according to law and, therefore, invalid. He directed the assistant Custodian to dispose of the cases in accordance with law after the issue of proper notice to the applicants. Thereupon, the Assistant Custodian decided to issue notices to the applicants under Section 7 (1) of the Act. The present applications are directed against this decision of the Assistant Custodian.
(3.) THE main contention of the applicants is that in view of the amendment of the act by Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act (No. 42 of 1954), hereinafter called the Amendment Act, no proceedings for declaring any property as evacuee property can be taken after 7-5-1954, unless they came within the proviso to Section 4 of the Amendment Act and that this case did not come within the proviso. Reliance in this connection was placed on Satya Dev Cheema v. Additional Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bharatpur, AIR 1956 Raj 193.;