PAHELWAN Vs. AUTHORISED DEPUTY CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are six applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, in which identical questions of law are involved.

(2.) ON information received by the Assistant Custodian, Ganaganagar, that the applicants had gone to Pakistan, proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee property Act (No. 31 of 1950) were taken against each one of the applicants, and their property was declared evacuee property ex parte. In 1952, the applicants made an application to the Assistant Custodian to the effect that they had not migrated to Pakistan, but had merely left for the neighbouring villages on account of famine. They, therefore, prayed that the ex parte orders passed against them be set aside on proof of their assertion. The Assistant Custodian rejected these applications in tune 1953, but on appeal their cases were remanded for a fresh decision. Fresh notices were issued by the Assistant Custodian, and after enquiry the lands in the possession of the applicants were declared as evacuee property by order of 29-91956. On appeal, it was held that the notices issued to the applicants were not according to law, and A direction was issued to the Assistant Custodian to dispose of the cases in accordance with law after the issue of proper notice to the applicants. Thereupon, the Assistant Custodian decided to issue noticed to the applicants under Section 7 (1) of the said Act. Each one of the petitioners contended that no notice could be issued now under Section 7 (1) of the Act in view of the provisions of Section 7a of the Act inserted by the Amendment Act of 1954. Each one of the petitioners had two courses open to him. He could wait till the decision was finally given after enquiry on facts, and then file en appeal, if the decision was adverse to the petitioner. He could also come to this Court by writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Assistant Custodian to issue notice under Section 7 (1) of the Act, if he chose to do so. The petitioners took recourse to the latter remedy, and filed writ petitions in this court. The writ petition of Pahelwan was No. 71 of 1957, Allah Bux No. 73 of 1957. Khusia No. 74 of 1957, Jehana No. 76 of 1957, Lukman No. 79 of 1957, and farida No. 80 of 1957. This Court was of opinion that the case came under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7a of the Act, and the Assistant Custodian had jurisdiction to issue the notice, and to proceed further in the matter. These writ petitions were dismissed by judgment dated 30-4-1958.

(3.) EACH one of the applicants in the aforesaid writ petitions has applied for a certificate that the valuation of the subject-matter in dispute in this Court and on appeal to the Supreme Court is not less than Rs. 20,000/ -. In the alternative, it is prayed that the case may be certified to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme court under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution.