With special leave, the heirs and legal representatives of Ram Chand Kohli have appealed to this Court.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated the September 11, 1962 of the Custodian General of Evacuee Property, Department of Rehabilitation, Ministry of Works Housing and Supply, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.
On September 27, 1961 the State of Uttar Pradesh applied under s. 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 31 of 1950 invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Custodian General against the order of the Deputy Custodian numberifying the property as evacuee property.
The appellants who are the legal representatives of Ram Chand Kohli companytended, inter alia, that the petition was belated, and that in any event the property being of the ownership of Chowdhry Akbar Hussain it was lawfully declared evacuee property.
11, Kaiserbagh at Lucknow, was since 1918 in the occupation of one Chowdhry Akbar Hussain.
After the partition of India, Chowdhry Akbar Hussain migrated to Pakistan.
The Custodian Genral upheld the plea of the State of Uttar Pradesh, and set aside the order of the Deputy Custodian.
659 of 1964.
On June 7, 1957 the property was put up for sale by public auction and was purchased by one Ram Chand Kohli.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
T. Desai and O. P. Rana, for respondent No.
S. Dindra, K. S. Chawla and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos.
11, Kaiserbagh as evacuee property.
1209 R UP/1961.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. House No.
Gopal Singh, for the appellants.
By order dated October 12, 1949 the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Lucknow, in exercise of power under s. 6 of the U. P. Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance 1 of 1949 as companytinued in force by Central Ordinances 12 and 20 of 1949 declared No.
Acting under s. 12 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 44 of 1954, the Central Government by a numberification dated May 27, 1955 acquired the property for the Central pool companystituted under that Act.
No claim was preferred by any person in pursuance of this numberification, and management of the property companytinued with the Custodian of Evacuee Property.
2, 3 and 4.
The State of Uttar Pradesh claimed that the property belonged to the State and Chowdhry Akbar Hussain had numberproprietary interest in the property and accordingly the Deputy Custodian had numberpower to declare it evacuee property.
Thereafter several Ordinances relating to evacuee property were passed one after another, the succeeding Ordinance repealing the previous one and creating, except in the case of repeal of Ordinance 9 of Samvat 2004, a chain of fictions by which certain provisions of the repealed Ordinance were deemed to companytinue under the repealing Ordinance.
It is true that companynsel for the appellants did attempt to meet the case sought to be raised by the State of Uttar Pradesh on the merits, and submitted that the property in dispute was owned by Chowdhry Akbar Hussain.
