Custodian Evacuee's Property vs Ahad Nago

This is an appeal preferred by the Custodian Evacuees' Property against the order passed by the Custodian General on 13-11-1956.

On behalf of the Respondents, a preliminary objection is raised that the Custodian, being not an aggrieved person is not competent to file the

present appeal against the order of the Custodian General.

In order to appreciate the preliminary objection it is necessary to set out the facts which have given rise to this appeal. The House-boat No. 555

Miss England"" was notified as an evacuee property on 23-8-1952 by the Custodian and Ahad Nagu Respondent in the present appeal was

ordered to surrender the possession of the house-boat to the Custodian. Against this order Ahad Nagu appealed before the Custodian General

who accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Custodian and also the notification by which the house-boat was declared as an evacuee

property. The Custodian has come up in appeal against the order of the Custodian General.

A preliminary objection is taken by the Respondent that the appeal does not lie inasmuch as the Custodian is not a 'person aggrieved' with-the

meaning of those words occurring in Section 30 of the Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 2006. Section 30 gives any person aggrieved a

right to appeal against an order made under S 8. Section 14 or Section 25 by a Deputy or an Assistant Custodian to the Custodian and to the

Custodian General where the original or appellate order has been passed by they Custodian and Additional Custodian or an authorized Deputy

Custodian and to the High Court against the order of the Custodian General provided that no appeal lies to the High Court against the concurrent

findings of the Custodian and the Custodian General.

In Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi AIR 1962 SC 319 (A), it has been held that the 'person

aggrieved' as occurs in Section 24 (which corresponds to Section 30 of our Act) is a person who is given a right to raise a contest in a certain

matter and his contention is negatived. He is certainly aggrieved by the order disallowing his. contention. The meaning of the term 'person

aggrieved' was explained in Ex-parte Official Receiver Read, In re, (1887) 19 QBD 174 (B). It was there determined that any person who makes

an application to a Court for a decision, or any person who is brought before a Court to submit to a decision, is, if the decision goes against him,

thereby a 'person aggrieved' by that decision.

The Custodian who is the Appellant in this case cannot be considered to be a person aggrieved simply because his order has been overset by

the Custodian General. The Custodian u/s 8 of the Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act has to determine the claim put for-. ward by any

interested person in the property notified u/s 6 of the said Act as an evacuee property. He may, after enquiry, accept or reject the claim put

forward by any interested person.

If the Custodian disallows the claim put forward by a person that person being person aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal u/s 30 of the

Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act to the Custodian General. The Custodian General under his powers of appeal u/s 30 and under

powers of general superintendence vested in him u/s 4 of the Act may overset the order of the Custodian or confirm it. The custodian cannot make

a grievance of the fact that his order is reversed.

Section 4 Clause (2) which reads as under:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, all Custodians Additional, Deputy or Assistant Custodians of evacuee property shall discharge the duties

imposed on them by or under this Act under the general superintendence and control of the Custodian General.

gives the Custodian General powers of general superintendence and control over the Custodian and if the Custodian General in discharge of the

powers vested in him modifies or cancels the order of the Custodian the latter cannot be considered to be a person aggrieved within the meaning of

those words occurring in Section 30 of the Act.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Custodian is a trustee on behalf of the evacuee and as the order of the Custodian General

affected the rights of the evacuee, the custodian being a trustee, is a person aggrieved. This contention is without force. It is true that u/s 5 of the

Act the property of the evacuee vests in the Custodian and he is to deal with that property as enumerated in Section 9 of the Act but the Custodian

has to act under the general superintendence of the Custodian General and the question whether or not the property is an evacuee property has to

be determined by the Custodian and then finally by the Custodian General if the order of the Custodian is appealed against . by any interested

person.

The Custodian becomes a trustee if his order notifying the property as an evacuee property is not overset by the Custodian General. In view of the

fact that the Custodian General has general superintendence and control over the Custodian, the order of the Custodian General cannot be

challenged by the Custodian in appeal u/s 30 of the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act inasmuch as he does not come within the meaning

of 'person aggrieved'. Our attention has been drawn to a ruling of the Patna High Court reported as Md. Sharifuddin Vs. R.P. Singh and Another, ,

in which certain holdings were notified u/s 7(3) of the Act as evacuee property, but subsequently on objection by a third person they were released

by the Assistant Custodian on the ground that they belonged exclusively to the objector.

Thereupon the Assistant Custodian headquarters, Patna who was incharge of evacuee properties in Bihar by virtue of his appointment u/s 6(3) filed

an appeal to the Custodian u/s 24(1) and it was held that the Appellant was certainly 'a person aggrieved' and had locus standi to file the appeal.

This ruling is distinguishable. In this case an Assistant Custodian had released the property at the instance of an objector and another Assistant

Custodian who was in charge of the evacuee property considering that the order was erroneous filed an appeal to the Custodian. In the present

case, as point out above, the Custodian has to act under the general superintendence and control of the Custodian Genera] and he has no locus

standi to appeal against the order of the Custodian General who had overset his order in appeal.

We are, therefore, of opinion that the Custodian is not' competent to file the present appeal and this appeal is dismissed but in view of the

circumstances of the case we do not make any order as to costs.