HAFIZ ZAHOOR UDDIN Vs. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit property was Wakfalal-aulad (Trust for the benefit of the family members] held by the appellant as the Mutwalli (Trustee) for the benefit of himself and other members of the family. Some of the beneficiaries having migrated to Pakistan, their beneficial interest in the property became "evacuee property within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, thereinafter called the Act of 1950) and vested in the Custodian under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act on a notification being issued under section 7(1) thereof The evacuee property being an undivided 63/140 share of the property, only constructive possession of it could be taken by the Custodian under Rule 10(3) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Central) Rules 1950 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1950). Under Section 10(2)(b) of the Act, the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) passed an order on 20th November, 1952 that the appellant being the Mutwalli was entitled to manage the suit property as such. He was, however, ordered to deposit the rent of the evacuee portion of the property in the Custodian's Chest.

(2.) The question of the management of the beneficiary interest of the evacuees in Wakf-alal aulad properties was leter on considered by the Government and a policy decision was taken on 29th December, 1957 to transfer, the interest of the evacuee beneficiaries on its capitalisad value, viz. 20 times the net annual rental value to the non-evacuee beneficiaries. Still later on 9th September, 1960 this decision was further modified with the result that the evacuee beneficiary interest in properties in which some beneficiaries had along with the Mutwalli were non-evacuees was to be relingushed in forour of the non-evacuees beneficiaries of the respective wakt. Apparently, this action was taken under Section 54 of the Act of 1950 which empowers the Central Government to pass appropriate orders for the purpose of regulating the administration of evacuee property. In accordance with this policy decision, the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) passed an order on 15th November i960 relinquishing the interest of the evacuee beneficiaries in the suit property and releasing it in favour of the appellant subject to the conditions, inter alia, that he shall pay the amount if any, due to the Custodian, in respect of the property or management thereof. Accordingly, the appellant is in the exclusive management of the suit property since then. The Assistant Accounts Officer of the Office of the Custodian of the Evacuee Property, however, called upon the appellant to render accounts with respect to the beneficiaries interest of the evacuee property up to the date of the relinquishment. The appellant repudiated his liability to render the account. On 19th July, 1964. therefore, the appellant was served with a notice by the Assistant Custodian to submit the statement of Accounts, failing which coercive measures would be taken against the appellant to realise the sum of Rs. 14,028.84 as the arrears of rent for the 63/140 shares of the evacuee beneficiaries in the suit property. This order was challenged as ultra vires and illegal by the appellant in a suit which has been dismissed by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court.

(3.) In the second Appeal, the attack on the said demand was confined by the learned counsel for the appellant to the following grounds :-