Case: Anwari (Mst) Vs. State of Punjab &amp; Others

To appreciate the controversy here a resume of the facts will be apt. The appellant invited a decision as to the nature of the property in question from the Additional Custodian by filing an application under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for short "the Act"), who, however, referred the matter to theand directed the appellant to appear before theat Chandigarh onBy order datedal, after referring to the records of the litigation pending between the appellant and Respondents 5 to 7 in the civil court, pointed out that Shahabudin had left for Pakistan during partition of the country or immediately thereafter so he was a resident of Pakistan and, therefore, he was an evacuee within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act. That finding was affirmed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab in his order passed under Section 54 of the said Act. The Financial Commissioner relying upon the report of SSPs office which indicated that Shahabudin came to India onand left India onnoted that that fact remained unrebutted and held that the property in question vested automatically in the Custodian and therefore Section 7 of the Act was not attracted and thus dismissed the revision onThat order was impugned in the writ petition before the High Court by the appellant. The writ petition was dismissed, by the order under challenge, so the appellant is before us in this appeal.

Reasoning:
This Court in Assistant Custodian, E.P. v. Brij Kishore Agarwala 1974 SC 111  had occasion to consider the provisions of the U.P. Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance (1 of 1949). It was held that under Section 5 of that Ordinance all evacuee property situate in the United Provinces vested in the Custodian and on the repeal of that Ordinance under Section 58 of the Act, the property which had already vested in the Custodian continued to vest in him notwithstanding the repeal of that Ordinance by Section 58 of the Act and there was no need to take any action under Section 7 of the Act.In view of this position we do not find any illegality in the order of the High Court warranting our interference.