RUBAB BAI Vs. ASST CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY CUM-MANAGING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and is directed against the Custodian 'and Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Indore.

(2.) THE petitioners are four in number, Petitioners Nos. 1, 3 and 4 claim to be the joint owners of House No. 1/163 situated in Kasaiwada and No. 689, Chowk Bazar of Shajapur while petitioner No. 2 claims to have an interest of a mortgagee thereon. The circumstances in which the petitioners seek to quash the orders of the opponents with reference to the above mentioned house tire as under: the house initially belonged to one Sharafali who died leaving behind his widow, daughters and sons. Three of his sons namely Alimohammad, Abbas and Fida hussain were, on Credible information, believed to have migrated to Pakistan. Notices were issued by the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act on 1-4-1955. The petitioners objected to the declaration of the said property as evacuee property. However the assistant Custodian by his order dated 19-2-1956 declared the aforesaid three sons of Sharafali as evacuees under Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Act and their property as evacuee property. Appeal preferred by two of the petitioners named Hatimali and Rubabbai against the order of Assistant Custodian dated 19-2-1956 was dismissed on 29-9-1956. A revision petition was preferred against this decision to the Deputy Custodian general Evacuee Property who by his order dated 4-1-1957 held that in view of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act No. 42 of 1954 the three sons of Sharafali could not have been declared as evacuees and their property could not have been declared evacuee property after 7-5-1954 under Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Act. The Deputy Custodian General however observed:

(3.) THE main point pressed by Mr. Mohammad Ahmad Khan is that since no action had been taken and nothing had been done either under the Madhya Bharat or gwalior Evacuee Law there was no vesting and the property had never become evacuee property. Reliance in this connection was sought to be based upon the decision of this Court in Md. Mughani Khan v. Custodian Evacuee Property Civil misc. Petn. No. 1 of 1957 (M. P.)