' The property in dispute was firstly put to auction in 1962 and again 1963 when it was purchased by the petitioner in whose favour a P.T.O. An P.T.D. Were issued in the year 1965. Following this transfer the petitione gave a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 to one Lachmandas. One Dr. Hiranand, President of Rohri Hindu Panchayat came to know of the transfer of Lachmandas and on 16th June 1966 filed an application under section 22 of Act XII of 1957. This application was dismissed by the Deputy Custodian which order was maintained in appeal but in revision it was set aside and the case remanded back..To the Deputy Custodian for disposal of the application on merits after certain parties were impleaded as applicants.
2. The Deputy Custodian after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the property did not belong to Rohri Hindu Panchayat inasmuch as according to the City Survey ..Extract for :the year 1939, the property stood in the name of Gobindram and three others by inheritance from Aamerdas and on assumption that these persons had migrated in the year 1947 to India which I may add is factually correct as conceded to by Mr. Kishanchand held the property to be evacuee.
3. The order was maintained in appeal but in revision it was set aside by the learned Custodial) by his impugned order dated 18th May, 1974.
4. The learned Custodian has based his order on a finding given by an Additional District Judge, Sukkur in a rent proceeding between the petitioner and one Lachmandas in which the defence of the latter was that he was not in occupation of the property in dispute and the finding given was that the property was in 'possession of Rohri Hindu Panchayat and the rent application was, therefore, not maintainable againstLachrna-ndas, as the learned Custodian was also impressed by the entry of the, year 196768 in the Municipal record showing the property to be a religious property which was exempted from payment of taxes.
5. Mr. S. A. Kirmani, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order made by the Custodian' on the ground that the application under section 22 of Act XII of 1957 was not maintainable in law and that on merits the finding of the Custodian was wholly unjustified. In addition to the later contention the learned counsel argued that according to the Ci't'y Survey extract the property stood in the names of certain 'individuals and not in the name of the Rohri Hindu Panchayat nor was it 'shown that the property was held on behalf of a Hindu Endowment.
The argument was that on the departure of the persons who were the recorded owners of the property to India and in the absence of confirmation of the rights of the successors allegedly members of the Rohri Hindu Panchayat to manage the property, the property became evacuee for it was hit by proviso (2) to section 3 of Act XII of 1957.
6. As against this Mr. Kishanchand the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the finding of the Custodian is that it was a religious property and it was so since before the Partition.
The Custodian has not so held and in fact I find that he did not care to examine the evidence brought on record which evidence has been referred to by the Courts below. The matter has to be examined in some detail. I therefore, set aside the order of the Custodian dated 18th May, 1974 and remand the case back to the Custodian for disposal in accordance with law, after notice to all the parties concerned.
7. The petition is disposed of in terms aforesaid with no order as to cost. accordingly.