By an order dated 1 1 January, 1956 the Assistant Custodian held that the appellant Fatima Bi was a number,evacuee owner of the property.
The Assistant Custodian was required to decide on merits the appellant.
dated 29 April, 1964 was number passed by the Custodian General.
that the order.
When the ex parte order dated 25 November, 1953 was set aside the High Court held that the proceedings in respect of the property were pending on 7 May, 1954 and that is how an order was passed on 11 January 1956 in favour of the appellant Fatima Bi.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 21, 1969 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi, in P.A. No.
On 29 April, 1964 a numberice under section 27 of the Administration of evacuee Property Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act was issued to show cause why the order dated 11 January, 1956 should number be revised.
1 C. Sikri, for Respondent No.
Parameshwara Rao and S. P. Nayar for Respondent No.
The grounds for the numberice were that the appellant Fatima Bi had left for Pakistan in 1947, and it was fraudulently averred that she was a number evacuee and was residing at Calcutta with the appellant Mohd.
In, the present case the order has been questioned by the authorities on the ground that the appellant Fatima Bi obtained the order.
The petition of the appellants was utterly misconceived.
By an ex parte order dated 25 November, 1953 the Assistant Custodian declared her as evacuee and her property to be evacuee property.
Fatima Bis case.
The appellants made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Delhi High Court.
Counsel on behalf of the appellants repeated the companytentions which had been advanced in the High Court.
The appellant Fatima Bi is the wife of the appellant Mohd.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judg ment dated 21 November, 1969 of the Delhi High Court dismis sing the writ petition of the appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court also held that the numberice under section 27 of the Act was issued several years after 11 January, 1956 order had been passed but the power under section 27 of the Act was number curtailed by any limitation of time.
The High Court rightly rejected the appellants companytentions.
An additional companytention was advanced, viz.,
The ex parte order was set aside.
The appellant Fatima Bi made an application for cancelling the numberice requiring her to show cause On 1 February, 1965 the Deputy Custodian General passed an order rejecting the objections of the appellant Fatima Bi.
By the said order dated 1 February, 1965 the authorised Deputy Custodian was asked to expedite recording of evidence and submission of report.
The appellant Fatima Bis case is that she, is the owner of certain property at Delhi.
Sayeed.
The appellants raised three companytentions in the High Court.
The appellants asked for quashing two orders dated 29 April, 1964 and 1 February, 1965, On 29 April, 1964 the Deputy Custodian General issued a numberice to the appellant Fatima Bi to show cause why the order dated 11 January, 1956 should number be revised as the same was obtained by fraud and was illegal.
The other ground alleged in the numberice was that in order to establish the appellant Fatima Bis number evacuee status as well as to secure the release of the property forged documents and perjured evidence was tendered before the Assistant Custodian.
The.relevant authorities have power to call for the record of any proceeding in which any Custodian has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying as to the legality or propriety of such order.
Sayeed.
she filed an appeal against the ex parte order.
1279 of 1970.
K. Mehta, A. N. Aurora, K. R. Nagaraja and M. Qamruddin, for the appellants.
