Natural justice in revision and evacuee property limits: effective hearing can suffice, and only the evacuee's share is covered.

A revisional order under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 may be sustained without a formal notice where the affected party is already before the Custodian, is informed of the proposed revision, and receives an effective hearing, because the statutory requirement is a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The discussion also notes that where alleged dissolution and transfer transactions are not proved bona fide, the evacuee property consequence is confined to the evacuee partner's own share in the partnership assets, not the entire partnership property, where the amended definition so limits the scope.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Custodian could revise the subordinate officer's order without issuing a formal notice when the affected party was already before him and was heard on the proposed revision; (ii) Whether the sale and dissolution transactions were bona fide and what part of the partnership properties could be treated as evacuee property.

Issue (i): Whether the Custodian could revise the subordinate officer's order without issuing a formal notice when the affected party was already before him and was heard on the proposed revision.

Analysis: The proviso to section 26(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 requires that no prejudicial revisional order be made without giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The absence of a formal notice is not fatal where the party is already before the Custodian and is informed of the proposed revision and given an effective hearing. The record showed that counsel for the appellant was apprised of the proposed revision and was fully heard.

Conclusion: The revisional order was within jurisdiction and complied with natural justice; this contention fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the sale and dissolution transactions were bona fide and what part of the partnership properties could be treated as evacuee property.

Analysis: The finding that the alleged earlier dissolution was not proved was upheld, and the deed-based transactions were treated as not bona fide. The dissolution operated only from the date of the dissolution deed, and the purported transfer of the evacuee's share could not stand against the Act. At the same time, in view of the amended definition of evacuee property, the legal consequence was confined to the evacuee's share in the partnership assets and not the entirety of the properties.

Conclusion: The transactions were not bona fide, and only the evacuee's 8 annas share in the partnership properties was liable to be treated as evacuee property.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, but the order was clarified so that only the evacuee partner's share, and not the whole of the partnership properties, stood within the evacuee property regime.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the revisional power, a formal notice is not indispensable where the party is already before the authority and is otherwise given a real and effective opportunity of hearing; further, evacuee property is confined to the evacuee's own share where the statutory definition so limits it.

---