HAJEE SULEMAN Vs. CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Indore, which contains a prayer that

(2.) THE short facts are that in Civil Misc. Case No. 7 of 1952, we held that in so far as the Custodian ignored the provisions of S. 7 of Act No. 31 of 1950, he acquired no jurisdiction to declare the 'Gumti' as evacuee property and setting aside his order, we directed the restoration of 'Gumti' to the petitioner. In this application it is stated that since the above order was passed by the High Court, the Custodian has followed the procedure, which he had omitted to do before, and, has declared the property to be evacuee property. In view of the subsequent proceedings in the matter by the Custodian, this application seeks that the order passed by the High Court in the writ case, be vacated.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General has argued that the word 'vacated' has been wrongly used by the Custodian, and that what is really desired is a modification of the order. Whether the order is sought to be vacated or modified, we have first of all to consider the process that will bring about the change.