Person aggrieved under evacuee property law does not include one Custodian appealing against another Custodian's order.

The phrase "any person aggrieved" in Section 24 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 must be read in context and does not extend to one Custodian appealing against an order of another Custodian. The statutory scheme separately provided inquiry under Section 7, appeal under Section 24, revision under Section 26, and plenary revision by the Custodian-General under Section 27, showing that a subordinate Custodian was not a party to a lis and had no standing as an aggrieved person. The Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna was therefore not competent to maintain the appeal, and the order passed on that appeal was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an Assistant Custodian could maintain an appeal under Section 24 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 against an order releasing property, and whether such an appeal was competent in the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated all officers described as Custodians as falling within the definition of "Custodian", while separately providing for inquiry under Section 7, appeal under Section 24, revision under Section 26, and plenary revision by the Custodian-General under Section 27. The Court held that the phrase "any person aggrieved" in Section 24 must be read in context and cannot be stretched to include one Custodian appealing against the order of another Custodian. It distinguished the prior decision relied on, explaining that a person who participates in an inquiry as an interested party may be an aggrieved person, but a subordinate Custodian acting within the administrative hierarchy is not a party to a lis and has no standing to appeal as an aggrieved person.

Conclusion: The Assistant Custodian, Headquarters, Patna was not a person aggrieved within Section 24, and the appeal before the Custodian was not competent. The order passed on that appeal was liable to be quashed.

---