1973 (3) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the Delhi High Court. The appellants asked for quashing two orders, dated April 2, 1964, and February 1, 1965. On April 29, 1964, the Deputy Custodian General issued a notice to the appellant Fatima Bi to show cause why the order, dated January 11, 1956, should not be revised as the same was obtained by fraud and was illegal. The appellant Fatima Bi made an application for cancelling the notice requiring her to show cause. On February 1, 1965, the Deputy Custodian General passed an order rejecting the objections of the appellant Fatima Bi. By the said order, dated February 1, 1965 the authorised Deputy Custodian was asked to expedite recording of evidence and submission of report. 3. The appellant Fatima Bi is the wife of the appellant M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act were barred by limitation. 5. The High Court held that the order dated January 11, 1956, was not final and it could be re-opened. Section 28 of the Act was held by the High Court not to be a bar to the powers of revision under Section 27 of the Act. Section 28 makes orders final save as otherwise expressly provided in Chapter V. Sections 27 and 28 both occur in Chapter V. Therefore, the High Court rightly held that the power of revision under Section 27 was not taken away by Section 28 of the Act. 6. The High Court also held that Section 7-A of the Act did not constitute a bar to the issue of notice under Section 27. The bar in Section 7-A is that no property shall be declared to be evacuee pr....