HAFIZ ABDUL RAHIM Vs. DEPUTY CUSTODIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Abdul Rahim under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari or any other writ praying that certain proceedings taken by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Jaipur, were without jurisdiction and should be quashed along with all proceedings consequent on the proceeding of the Assistant Custodian or any other order or direction which the Court considers proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) The application has been made in the following circumstances : There is a house No. 767 situate in Mohalla Bisatiyan Chaukri Ghat Darwaza, Jaipur City. A report was made to the Assistant Custodian, Jaipur, in April 1950 that this house belonged to one Aja Khan, who had left for Pakistan and had been taken in possession by certain Muslims from Agra without authority. The Assistant Custodian called for a report from the Field Inspector and after perusing that report notice was issued under Rule of the Administration of Evacuee Property Central Rules, 1949 hereinafter called the Rules. Thereafter on the 15th of April 1950, the Assistant Custodian passed an order under Section 7 (1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance No. 27 of 1949 hereinafter called the Ordinance. Thereafter on the 24th of April 1950, the applicant filed a written statement before the Assistant Custodian objecting to the declaration that had been made under Section 7, This objection was considered by the Assistant Custodian. On the 12th of July 1950 the Assistant Custodian, who had by now become the Deputy Custodian, dismissed the objections holding that he had no power to review his order. Thereupon the applicant filed an appeal before the Custodian soon after. This appeal was dismissed for default of appearance on the 28th of October 1950. Thereupon there was an application for restoration which was dismissed on the 28th November 1950. In the meantime, it appears that the applicant had gone in revision to the Custodian General also. That revision was dismissed on the 30th of December 1950. The present application was then made on the 29th Of January 1951 in this Court.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the applicant is that there was no foundation for the jurisdiction of the Assistant Custodian who dealt with this matter and passed the first order on the 15th of April 1950. (It may be mentioned that in the application the applicant calls the order as that of the 17th of April 1950, but the correct date seems to us to be the 15th of April 1950). As such it is urged that all the subsequent proceedings should be quashed.