(1.) This Writ Appeal it against the judgment of our learned brother Manohar Pershad, J. at he then was, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant challenging the validity of the notification of the Custodian. Evacuee Property No. 9 dtd. 23/11/1949 issued under Sec. 6 of the Hyderabad Administration of Evacuee Property Regulation 71 of 1358 Fasli. The appellant purchased certain properties from one Parvati Bai who had purchased the same from Mino Chabar, son of Aderji, in 1952. Minechabar, son of Adarji, had constructed a building upon the land which was sold to Parvathi Bai and this, as we said, was sold to the appellant in 1957. On 14/11/1960, the Custodian, Evacuee Property, claiming to be the owner of the said property put it to auction. The appellant who, according to his affidavit, was surprised at this development and thinking that he would be die possessed also gave a bid with no intention of satisying the conditions of the auction and did not make the deposit, and immediately filed a Writ Petition, the decision of which is the a subject matter of this appeal.
(2.) The main argument of Mr. Deshmukh is that the Notification is bad in that it has notified in general terms all the properties of Ghulam Rassool Monatram s/o Ghulam Khader, Divisional Inspector of Schools, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad Dec-can and that it does not have the effect of vesting this property or any of the properties of Ghulam Rassol, the Evacuee, inasmuch as the notification is not specific but in general terms. We may say that the text of the main notification is as follows:
(3.) It will be observed that there is no description of the properties, their situation, their survey numbers or house numbers or any other detail which would be necessary to enable any one dealing with those properties from considering them to be evacuee properties, vested in the Custodian, Evacuee Properties. The English rendering of Sec. 6 of the old Hyderabad Regulation under which this notification has been published reads as follows: