BAKRU Vs. BADER-U-DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that has been referred for decision to the Full Bench by a division bench of this court in civil miscellaneous appeals Nos. 8 of 1965, and 86 of 1966 is whether an appeal lies to the High Court from an order of the Custodian General passed by him in revision against an order made by the Custodian, an Additional Custodian or an authorised Dv. Custodian under Section 8, Sect. 14 or Section 25 of the EvacueesAdministration of Property. Act, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) AT the hearing of the reference, the learned counsel for the appellants have urged that a comparison of clausec. with clausesa. andb. of Sub -Section1. of Section 30 of the Act would show that under clausec. it is not necessary for an appeal to lie to the High Court that the order appealed against should have been passed by the Custodian General in exercise of his appellate powers. They submit that the qualifications attached to the orders by clausesa. andb,. being absent in clausec. of Section 301. of the Act, the High Courts jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the orders passed by the Custodian General in revision is not barred.

(3.) THEY have further contended that, the only restriction against an appeal to the High Court from the order of the Custodian General is that contained in the proviso to clausec. which lays down that no appeal shall lie to the High Court against concurrent finding of the Custodian, and the Custodian General.