Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated September 3, 1956, of the Patna High Court in M. J. No.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an application to the High Court under Art.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Art.
March 10.
On August 4, 1955, the Custodian set aside the order of the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, and declared the shares of the brothers of the appellant in the holdings to be evacuee properties and referred the matter to the appropriate authority for the separation of their interest.
The facts relevant to the question raised in this appeal may be briefly stated.
C. Prasad, for the respondents.
458 of 1958.
226 of the Constitution to quash the order dated August 4, 1955, passed by Shri R. P. Singh, Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bihar.
On February 22, 1955, the Assistant Custodian, Head quarters, Patna filed an appeal before the Custodian, under s. 24 1 a of the Act, against the order of the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, dated April 26, 1954, releasing the holdings of the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
326, 774 and 654 in his possession as evacuee properties.
The Assistant Custodian, after making the necessary inquiry, held that the said holdings were evacuee properties.
Hence the appeal.
Thereafter, the Custodian, acting under s. 26 1 of the Act, called for the records of the case and, after hearing the appellant, by his order dated January 27, 1955, dropped the proceedings.
On information supplied by one Qurban Ahmad, the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, issued a numberice under s. 7 1 of the Administration of Evacuee property Act, 1950 Act 31 of 1950 , hereinafter called the Act , to the appellant to show cause why he should number declare holdings Nos.
On April 26, 1954, the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, on a companysideration of the evidence placed before him, held that the said properties were number evacuee properties, and on that finding he released them.
The appellant filed a revision petition under s. 26 of the Act against the said order to the Deputy Custodian, Hazaribagh, who set aside the order of the Assistant Custodian and remanded the matter to him for disposal in accordance with law.
Though many questions were raised before the High Court, only the following four questions were pressed before us by learned companynsel for the appellant No appeal lay to the Custodian from the order of the Assistant Custodian, Giridih, at the instance of the Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna.
603 of 1955.
K. Ramaraurthi, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and P. Singh, for the appellant.
Tek Chand Dolwani filed an appeal against the said order to the Custodian General of India One of the questions raised was whether the said Tek Chand Dolwani was a person aggrieved by the order of the Additional Custodian within the meaning of s. 24 of the Central Ordinance XXVII of 1949, and was entitled to appeal against the said order.
226 of the Constitution to quash the said order, but that was dismissed.
