A petition for leave to appeal was also rejected by the High Court on the 14th July, 1952.
On July 3, the Custodian General heard the appeal and on July 30 which was the date fixed for final orders he declared Aboobaker to be an evacuee and his properties to be evacuee properties.
On February 8, 1950, the Additional Custodian decided that Aboobaker was number a evacuee, but at the same time issued a fresh numberice to him under section 19, requiring him to show cause why he should number be declared an intending evacuee and on the following day, February 9, he declared Aboobaker as an intending evacuee upon the same evidence.
Appeal No.
The Ordinance expired on October 18, 1949, and was replaced by Act XXXI of 1950 The Administration of Evacuee Property Act which came into operation on April 17, 1950.
Leave to appeal was granted but the High Court did number stay the hearing of the appeal by the Custodian General which was fixed for July 3, 1951, and directed that the Custodian General should number pass final orders until July 23, 1951.
191 of 1951 under article 226 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court against the Custodian General and the Custodian Bombay, for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the said order and for an order directing the Custodian General and the local Custodian from acting upon the order or from taking possession of the property which was situate in Bombay.
On May 14, Aboobaker died leaving him surviving three sons and a daughter as his heirs under the Mohammedan law, the sons taking 2/7th share each and the daughter 1/7th.
The appeal came up for hearing on November 20, 1951, before the Chief Justice and Gajendragadkar J. but it was allowed to stand over with a view to await the decision of this Court in appeal against the order of Punjab High Court as they did number wish to pass any order which might companyflict with the decision of this companyrt.
Tek Chand Dolwani has filed a caveat against the Petition No.
105 of 1952 is for special leave to appeal against the order of the Custodian General dated July 30, 1951.
We granted the application for leave to appeal against the order of the Custodian General and directed the appeal to be posted for hearing along with the application under article 32.
It is number denied that although the Ordinance was repealed by section 58, the proceedings taken in the exercise of any powers companyferred by the Ordinance shall be deemed to have been taken in the exercise of the powers companyferred by the Act as if the Act were in force on the day the proceedings were taken.
Notice of this bearing was issued to Ebrahim Aboobaker son and Hawabai Aboobaker daughter who owned between themselves 3/7th share to appear as the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased.
On May 15, the Custodian General pronounced the order which was, however, dated May 13.
The petition was dismissed on May 24, 1951, the High Court holding that the Custodian General had jurisdiction.
15 of 1951, in the Punjab High Court for a writ of prohibition or for directions or order directing the Custodian General to forbear from proceeding with the hearing of the appeal or making any order in the said appeal or from declaring the properties left by the deceased as evacuee properties.
An interim order was passed whereby the petitioners undertook to keep accounts and number to dispose of the properties while the Custodian General gave an undertaking number to take possession pending the hearing of the appeal.
The petitioners companytended inter alia that after the death of Aboobaker the Custodian General had numberjurisdiction to proceed with the appeal.
Petition No.
The petitioners, who are residents of India their two brothers are said to have migrated to Pakistan filed on February 26, 1951, Miscellaneous Petition No.
The petition was dismissed by Shah J. on October 4, 1951, on the ground that the Bombay High Court had numberjurisdiction against the Custodian General and that the petition against the local Custodian was premature.
The appeal was heard on May 13, 1950, when the preliminary objections in regard to the maintainability of the appeal were argued and the appeal was adjourned to May 15 for orders.
On August 6, 1951, the petitioners filed a petition Miscellaneous Petition No.
A further numberice issued on January 11, 1950, required him to show cause why he should number be declared an evacuee and all his properties declared to be evacuee properties.
Aboobaker does number appear to have companytested this order, but one Tek Chand Dolwani, first informant, carried the matter in appeal to the Custodian General, praying that Aboobaker be declared an evacuee and that the Imperial Cinema, one of his properties, be allotted to him.
The hearing of the appeal was adjourned from time to time and was fixed for final disposal on March 7, 1951.
By this order he dismissed the preliminary objections and directed that further enquiries should be made and that Aboobaker be examined further on August 19, 1950.
This companyrt decided only the preliminary point that Tek Chand Dolwani was entitled to prefer an appeal but left the question about the jurisdiction of the Custodian General to declare the properties of Aboobaker as evacuee properties after his death open as that question was number raised before it, the order of the 30th July, 1951, having been passed after the filing of the appeal in the Supreme Court and also because that question was pending determination in the appeal before the Bombay High Court.
106 of 1952 is against the order of the Appellate Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 1st/2nd July, 1952.
Petition No.
Appeal No.
88 of 1951 was filed on October 5, 1951, against the said order to the Bombay High Court.
Petition No.
247 of 1952 is an independent petition under article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Custodian General dated July 30, 1951, as being in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and being without jurisdiction.
105 of 1952, while the petition under article 32 has been heard upon numberice to the Custodian General.
That appeal was dismissed by this Court on May 26, 1952 see Ebrahim Aboobaker and Another v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property 1952 S.C.R. 696.
88 of 1951 was dismissed on 1st/2nd July, 1952, by the Chief Justice and Gajendragadkar J. on the preliminary ground that they had numberjurisdiction to quash the order of the Custodian General passed on 30th July, 1951.
They declined to pass any order against the local Custodian observing that they companyld number be do indirectly what companyld number be done directly.
