Petition No.
The hearing of the appeal was adjourned from time to time and was fixed for final disposal on March 7, 1951.
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.
It is number denied that although the Ordinance was repealed by section 58, the proceedings taken in the exercise of any powers companyferred by the Ordinance shall be deemed to have been taken in the exercise of the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.
On May 14, Aboobaker died leaving him surviving three son and 9 daughter as his heirs under the Mohammedan law, the sons taking 2/7th share each and the daughter 1/7th.
88 of 1951 was filed on October 5, 1951 against the said order to the Bombay High Court.
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.
Appeal by special leave granted by the Supreme Court on 13th March, 1953, from the Judgment and Order dated the 30th July, 1951,.
This Court 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 1 1952 S.C.R. 696.
On May 15, the Custodian General pronounced the order which was, however,, dated May 13.
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.
106 of 1952 were also beard along with Civil Appeal No.
247 of 1952, a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of fundamental rights, and Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.
On August 6, 1951, the petitioners filed a petition Miscellaneous Petition No.
See Ebrahim Aboobaker and Another v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property 1 .
Notice of this hearing 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 ,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 a evacuee and his properties to be evacuee properties.
The petition was dismissed on May 24, 1951, the High Court holding that the Custodian General had jurisdiction.
105 of 1952, while the petition under article 32 has been heard upon numberice to the Custodian General.
The petitioners companytended inter alia that after the death of Aboobaker the Custodian General had numberjurisdiction to proceed with the appeal.
Petition No.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
31 A Judi./50.
Appeal No.
On February 8, 1950, the Additional Custodian decided that Aboobaker was number an 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.
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.
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.
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.
Tek Chand Dolwani has filed a caveat against the Petition No.
65 of 1953.
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.
66 of 1953.
Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Petition No.
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 the Punjab High Court as they did number wish to pass any order which might companyflict with the decision of this companyrt.
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.
Petition No.
That appeal was dismissed by this Court on May 26, 1952.
106 of 1952 is against the order of the Appellate Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 1st/2nd July, 1952.
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.
They declined to pass any order against the local Custodian observing that they companyld number do indirectly what companyld number be done directly.
was pending determination in the appeal before the Bombay High Court.
XXVII of 1949 calling upon him to show cause why his interest in certain specific property should number be declared to be evacuee property.
of the Custodian General of Evacuee Property in No.
A petition for leave to appeal was also rejected by the High Court on the 14th July, 1952.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India Porus A.Mehta with him for the respondent in Petition No.
T. Desai for the appellants and petitioners.
April 10, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GHULAM HASAN J. In order to understand and appreciate the point arising for companysideration in this case, it will be necessary to set out a few preliminary facts One Aboobaker Abdul Rehman, a resident of Bombay, received on December 16, 1949, from the Additional Custodian, Bombay, a numberice under section 7 of Ordinance No.
105 of 1952 is for special leave to appeal against the order of the Custodian General dated July 30, 1951.
