Civil Appeal No 512 of 1979
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated 18 5 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ No 2945 of 1964
Danial Latifi and Mrs Urmila Sirur for the Appellant
Nemo for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D GUPTA J
A notice issued under section 7 of the hereinafter called the Act gives rise to this appeal brought on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court on August 18 1969 under Article 1331a of the Constitution of India
Sub section 1 of section 7 states E Where the Custodian is of opinion that any property is evacuee property within the meaning of this Act he may after causing notice thereof to be given in such manner as may be prescribed to the persons interested and after holding such inquiry into the matter as the circumstances of the case permit pass an order declaring any such property to be evacuee property
 Rule 6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Central Rules 1950 hereinafter called the Rules which lays down the manner of inquiry under section 7 provides in sub rule 1 that where the Custodian is satisfied from information in his possession or otherwise that any property or an interest therein is prima facie evacuee property he shall cause a notice to be served in the prescribed form on the person claiming title to such property or interest and on any other person or persons whom he considers to be interested in the property
Sub rule 2 of rule 6 says that the notice shall as far as practicable mention the grounds on which the property is sought to be declared evacuee property and shall specify the provision of the Act under which the person claiming any title to or interest in such property is alleged 17 189 SCI80 250 to be an evacuee
Evacuee has been defined in section 2d of the Act to include several categories of persons but for the purpose of this case it is necessary to refer only to first three of them
The relevant part of the definition is as follows 2d evacuee means any person i who on account of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances leaves or has on or after the 1st day of March 1947 left any place in a State for any place outside the territories now forming part of India or ii who is resident in any place now forming part of Pakistan and who for that reason is unable to occupy supervise or manage in person his property in any part of the territories to which this Act extends or whose property in any part of the said territories has ceased to be occupied super vised or managed by any person or is being occupied supervised or managed by an unauthorised person or iii who has after the 14th day of August 1947 obtained otherwise than by way of purchase or exchange any right to interest in or benefit from any property which is treated as evacuee or abandoned property under any law for the time being in force in Pakistan
 The appellant was declared an evacuee by the Assistant Custodian Judicial Deoria
Having failed to have the declaration set aside by the appellate and the revisional authorities under the Act the appellant moved the High Court by a writ petition challenging the notice under s section 7 and the subsequent proceedings based on it
This appeal is from the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition in limine
The notice in question was issued by the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property Deoria to the appellant and his brother Bashir Ahmad on March 11 1954 stating that there was credible information in possession of the Custodian that they were evacuees under clause iii of section 2d of the Act and calling upon them to show cause why orders should not be passed declaring them evacuees and their property as evacuee property
The notice purports to have been issued in accordance with rule 6 which requires a statement of the tactual grounds on which the notice is based
The notice in this case 251 appears to be merely a copy of the prescribed form without particulars
The ground stated in the notice reproduces only what the form contains and that is as follows Acquisition of any rights to interest in or benefit from any evacuee or abandoned property in Pakistan otherwise than by way of purchase or exchange By this order dated December 14 1955 the Assistant Custodian Judicial Deoria declared the appellant and his brother evacuees under clauses i ii  iii of section 2d though in the notice issued it was alleged that the information in possession of the Custodian was that they were evacuees under clause iii only
An appeal preferred under section 24 of the Act was dismissed by the Authorised Deputy Custodian on August 30 1963 who upheld the order of the Assistant Custodian Judicial
The Authorised Deputy Custodian however found that the ground based on clause iii of section 2d of the Act was very vague and that the notice was defective to that extent
It has been stated already that the notice issued under rule 61 was based only on that ground and clauses i and ii of section 2d were not mentioned at all in that notice
The Assistant Custodian General Evacuee Property UP to whom the appellant and his brother preferred a revision found no merit in the applicants  case
The Court dismissed in limine the writ petition made by the appellant and his brother Bashir Ahmad on the view that the order of the Assistant Custodian General did not suffer from any error
Bashir Ahmad died after the High Court had disposed of the writ petition and the appeal before us is by Nasir Ahmad alone
It is necessary to state a few more facts
It appears that several years before the present notice under section 7 of the Act was issued on November 22 1949 when the Administration of Evacuee Property ordinance 1949 replaced by the Act in 1950 was in force a notice was issued to the appellant and his brothers including Bashir Ahmad by Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property Deoria Uttar Pradesh 
alleging that they were transferring their movable and immovable  properties to Pakistan and stating that for this reason they were being considered as evacuees and their property was being treated as evacuee property
The notice invited objections from them if any within 30 days
At the instance of District Magistrate Deoria a similar notice was issued to the appellant and his brothers by the authority in District Chapra in the State of Bihar where also they had some properties asking them to show cause why they should not be declared or intending evacuees
The Act had then come into force and this notice was issued under section 19 of the Act
Section 19 provided 252 for issue of notice to a person before declaring him an intending evacuees
The Act as originally passed contained in clause e of section
2 a definition of intending evacuee as meaning a person who had transferred after August 14 1947 any of his assets to Pakistan
Section 19 was repealed and clause e of section 2 was deleted in 1953
On enquiry it was found that there was no reliable evidence to justify a declaration that the appellant and his brothers were intending evacuees and the Deputy Custodian Chapra dropped the proceeding on May 24 1952
On November 29 1952 the Deputy Custodian Deoria also dropped the proceeding started upon the notice issued by him but on the same day he initiated a proceeding under section 7 of the Act against the appellant and his brother Bashir Ahmad that ended in the declaration challenged in this appeal
The facts stated above clearly show that the notice and the declaration that followed are both invalid
The notice called upon the appellant and his brother to show cause why they should not be declared evacuees under clause iii of section 2d of the Act and the ground mentioned in the notice was also based on that clause yet the Assistant Custodian found that they were evacuees under clauses i and ii as well
The Authorised Deputy Custodian held that the ground given in the notice in support of the case based on clause iii was vague and the notice was defective so far as that ground was concerned but that was the only case the appellant was called upon to answer
The foundation of a proceeding under section 7 is a valid notice and an inquiry which travels beyond the bounds of the notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent
Therefore the declaration that the appellant was an evacuee under clauses i and ii of section 2d of the Act must be held invalid
Under rule 6 the notice under section 7 must be issued in the prescribed form and contain the grounds on which the property is sought to be declared evacuee property
As stated earlier the notice that was issued in this case merely reproduced the form without mentioning the particulars on which the case against the appellant was based
It was
essential to state the particulars to enable the appellant to answer the case against him
Clearly therefore the notice did not comply with rule 6 and could not provide a foundation for the proceedings that followed
What is said in the preceding paragraph makes it plain that the authority concerned did not apply his mind to the relevant material before issuing the notice
The same thing is apparent from another fact
It has been stated that on November 29 1952 the Deputy Custodian Deoria dropped the proceeding seeking to declare the appellant 253 an intending evacuee and that on the same day he directed the initiation of a proceeding under section 7
Section 7 required the Custodian to form an opinion that the property in question is evacuee property within the meaning of the Act before any action under that section is taken
Also under rule 6 the Custodian has to be satisfied from information in his possession or otherwise that the property is prima facie evacuee property before a notice is issued
On November 29 1952 no evidence was found to support a declaration that the appellant was an intending evacuee
There is no material on record to suggest that on that very day the authority had before him any evidence to justify the initiation of a proceeding to declare the appellant an evacuee and his property as evacuee property
The notice under section 7 thus appears to have been issued without any basis
The Assistant Custodian General who found no merit in the revisional application preferred by the appellant overlooked these aspects of the case
We are therefore unable to agree with the High Court that the Assistant Custodian General s order did not suffer from any error
We allow this appeal and quash the notice issued to the appellant on March 11 1954 and all subsequent proceedings based on it
The respondents have not appeared to contest the appeal there will be no order as to costs
PBR Appeal allowed 


Summary:
A notice under section 7 of the  was Issued by the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property to the appellant and his brother since deceased stating that there was credible information in possession of the Custodian that they were evacuees under clause iii of section 2d of the Act and calling upon them to show cause why they would not be declared evacuees and their property as evacuee property The Assistant Custodian eventually declared the appellant and his brother as evacuees under clauses i ii  iii of section 2d of the Act
The Authorised Deputy Custodian although he dismissed the appellant  appeal under section 24 of the Act pointed out that the ground based on clause iii of section 2d was very vague and that the notice was defective to that extent
The Assistant Custodian General Evacuee Property dismissed the appellant s review petition and the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine
Allowing the appeal  HELD The notice and the declaration that followed stating that the appellant was an evacuee under clauses i and ii of section 2d of the Act are invalid
252E F 1
The notice called upon the appellant and his brother to show cause why they should not be declared evacuees under clause iii of section 2d and the ground mentioned in the notice was also based on that clause yet the Assistant Custodian found that they were evacuees under clauses i and ii as well
The Authorised Deputy Custodian held that the ground given in the notice in support of the case based on clause iii was vague and the notice was defective so far as that ground was concerned but that was the only case the appellant was called upon to answer
The foundation of a proceeding under section 7 is a valid notice and an inquiry which travels beyond the bounds of the notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent
252D E 2
From the facts stated above it would appear that the Authority concerned did not apply his mind to the relevant material before issuing the notice
The same thing is apparent from another fact
On November 29 1952 the Deputy Custodian dropped the proceeding seeking to declare the appellant an intending evacuee and that on the same day directed initiation of a proceeding under section 7
Section 7 required the Custodian to form an opinion that the property in question was evacuee property within the meaning of the Act 249 before any action under that section was taken
Under rule 6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Central Rules 1950 the Custodian had to be satisfied from information in his possession or otherwise that the property was prima facie evacuee property before a notice was issued
On November 29 1952 no evidence was found to support a declaration that the appellant was an intending evacuee
There was no material on record to suggest on that very day the authority had before him any evidence to justify initiation of a proceeding to declare the appellant an evacuee and his property as evacuee property
The notice under section 7 appears to have been issued without any basis
The Assistant Custodian General who found no merit in the reversional application preferred by the appellant overlooked these aspects of the case
252H 253 A B