P L D 1958 Custodian (W (PLP)

The case was fixed for evidence on 6th October, 1951. On 18th September, 1951, Mr. Bhandari applied for an adjournment of the case because his son had to undergo a serious operation at Kasauli and he wanted to go there. It was stated in the petition that, as required by the Rehabilitation Depart ment the petitioner had acquired permit No. 2495‑FS‑PMT‑51/6592, dated 12th September, 1951 for permanent residence in Pakistan and that the counsel for the Rehabilitation Department had assured the petitioner that he would not press his petition for review. On this petition coming up for hearing before the Custodian .on 6th October, 1951, the counsel for the Rehabilitation Authority was directed to obtain instructions on the points raised by the petitioner. The petitioner had produced a certified copy of the letter issued by the Permit Officer of the Punjab Government to the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India to the effect that the Punjab Government had no objection to the permit given to Mr. Bhandari to go to Pakistan from India being converted into one for permanent residence in Pakistan Mr. Muhammad Hussain Khan, R. O. (Legal) who was appearing on behalf of the Rehabilitation Authority stated on 24th November, 1951 that he had received instructions from the Rehabilitation Commissioner not to pursue the petition for setting aside the order of restoration of Mr. Bhandari's property. The petition for setting aside the order of restoration was, therefore, dismissed on 24‑11‑1951. More than a year afterwards i.e., on 16th January, 1953, the Rehabilitation Authority made an application for revision of the order of the Additional Custodian dated 10th May, 1948 and for review of the order of the Custodian dated 24th November, 1951, on the grounds inter alia, that Mr. Bhandari had migrated to India as a result of the Partition, that he and his children were nationals of India, that after his migration his residential house No. 6, Race‑course Road, Lahore had been allotted to certain persons by the Rehabilitation Authority, that his account with the Punjab National Bank was transferred to Delhi before the Partition, that he returned to Pakistan after the Partition in January, 1948 and applied for restoration of his property, that the property was restored to him on the conditions that he will not sell it with out the permission of the Custodian and that he will reside and carry on business in Pakistan like other nationals of the country, that the application of the Rehabilitation Authority for setting aside this order of restoration was not pressed by the R. A. because Mr. Bhandari had given an under taking that he would permanently reside in Pakistan and had produced a letter from the Permit Officer of the Punjab Government to the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India saying that the Punjab Government had no objection to the temporary permit granted to Mr. Bhandari for visiting Pakistan being converted into one for permanent residence there, that Mr. Bhanduri had not fulfilled the condition of residing in Pakistan, that he was a national of India and permanently resided there, that he occasionally came to Pakistan for recovering rent of his property axed it was prayed that the order of restoration may be set aside. The reply to this petition was filed by Mr. Bhandari on 21‑4‑1953 denying that he was an Indian national or that he was residing there. He said that after the order of Mr. S. A. Rahman dated 24th November, 1951, he had gone to India only once‑on account of the death of his son on a temporary permit and an identity certificate showing that he was Pakistani national. He went in December, 1951 and owing to grief had a nervous breakdown which necessitated his stay in India for a few months. He returned to Lahore within six months i.e., in June, 1952 and continued to reside in Pakistan ever since. He filed a number of documents and an affidavit in support of this statement and denied that he had violated any of the conditions of restoration. At this time Mr. Soofi had succeeded Mr. S. A. Rahman as the Custodian of Evacuee Property and he framed the following issues on 9‑6‑53. (1) Whether Mr. Bhandari had violated the conditions imposed by the Additional Custodian in his order dated 10‑5‑1948 ? (2) Whether the property could not be restored to Mr. Bhandari under the above‑mentioned order ? (3) Whether Mr. Bhandari could not be regarded as a Pakistani National ? On 4th October, 1953, Mr. Manzoor Qadir filed a petition on behalf of Mr. Bhandari saying that the property of his client was restored to him in 1948 and the application of the Rehabilitation Authority for getting aside that order was finally rejected in 1951. The Rehabilitation Authority was asking for revision of that order after 5 years and for a review of the order of the Custodian refusing to set aside that order. The main allegation of the R. A. was that Mr. Bhandari was an Indian National and was permanently residing in India. This was denied on oath by Mr. Bhandari and the onus of proving their assertions was on the Rehabili tation Authority. Objection was taken to the issues framed by Mr. Soofi on the ground that they were vague and their amendment was prayed for. The Rehabilitation Authority filed a reply to this petition on 22nd October, .1953 saying that the written statement filed by Mr. Bhandari clearly showed that the conditions of the order of restoration dated 10th May, 1948 had been flagrantly violated and that there was no need to amend the issues. The statement of Mr. Bhandari, referred to above, is dated 21st April, 1953 and it is categorically denied therein that Mr. Bhandari is an Indian National or that he was residing in. India. It is not possible to hold that this statement shows that the conditions of the order of restoration dated 10th May, 1948 had been violated as alleged by the Rehabilitation Authority. No amendment of the issues was made by Mr. Soofi and the evidence of Mr. Khurshid Zaidi was recorded on 15th August, 1953. He said that the Indian Air Lines records of the visits of people to and from India and Pakistan prior to 1950 had been destroyed. Mr. Bhandari was then directed to furnish particulars of the journeys performed by him to and from India since August, 1947. The case was then adjourned to subsequent dates until Mr. Soofi was appointed a Judge of the High Court and I took charge as Custodian of Evacuee Property in the beginning of 1954. The first point that I had to determine was whether the Custodian can review only his own orders or the orders of his predecessors also. This question was involved in a large number of cases, and, after hearing arguments addressed by Mr. Manzoor Qadir and other counsel, I decided by my order dated 24th February, 1954 published in P L D 1954 (Custodian, Punjab) page 5, that the Custodian can review the orders of his predecessors. Notice was accordingly issued to the parties to appear before me on 12th April 1954. On 10th May, 1954, I passed an order setting out the history of the case and saying that the burden of proof of all the issues framed by Mr. Soofi was on the Rehabilitation Authority and they should start the evidence. The respondent would be given an opportunity to rebut that evidence if he wished to do so. It was urged by the counsel for the Rehabilitation Authority that the statement made by Mr. Muhammad Hussain Khan, referred to in the order of the Custodian dated 24th November, 1951, that he had received instructions from the Rehabilitation Commissioner (Mr. Fida Hassan) not to pursue the petition for setting aside the order of restoration dated 10th May, 1948 should be ignored because the instructions were given on misrepresentation of facts made by Mr. Muhammad Hussain Khan who was the R. O. (Legal) and counsel for the R. A. At the request of the counsel for both sides I framed 2 additional issues :‑ (1) Was the statement made by Mr. Muhammad Hussain Khan that he was instructed not to pursue the petition for setting aside the order dated 19th May 1948, the result of instructions obtained by him form from the Rehabilitation Commissioner by mis representation of facts, intentional or otherwise, and what is its effect ? (2) What is the effect or any breach of the conditions laid down in the order dated 10th May 1948, if committed prior to the order of the Custodian dated 24th November 1951 ? The parties were directed to file their lists of witnesses within a week from 10th May 1954 and the case was fixed for evidence of the Rehabilitation Authority on 8th June 1954. The Rehabilitation Authority did not file their list of witnesses until about 6 weeks later i.e., 16th June 1954 and on 25th June 1954, Mr. Bhandari made an application that the delay on the part of the Rehabilitation Authority in complying with the orders of the Court was causing him a great deal of hardship as he was not receiving any rent of his property and was finding it difficult to make two ends meet. It was further stated in the petition that the nature of the mis‑representation alleged to have been made by Mr. Muhammad Hussain Khan was not disclosed and it was prayed that the Rehabilitation Authority should not be allowed to resile from the position taken up by them before my predecessor Mr. S.A. Rahman. Mr. Muhammad Hussain Khan, Advocate Lahore was produced as the first witness for the R A. on the 26th July 1954. He deposed that the instructions received by him not to pursue the petition for cancellation of the restoration order were based on a report made by him that in some cases persons against whom proceedings were taken for setting aside orders restoring their property had produced Pakistan Nationality Certificates. It was suggested that such certificates should not be issued without previous consultation with the Rehabilitation Commissioner (General) and instructions were asked for regarding the action to be taken in the case of Mr. Bhandari. The witness said that he had not specifically named Mr. Bhandari in his report as one of the persons who had produced a Pakistan Nationality Certificate but in fact he had produced 2 certificates marked Exs. A. and B. Ex. A. was a certificate of identity to be produced by persons domiciled in Pakistan when applying for a permit to go to India. It showed that Mr. Bhandari was domiciled in Pakistan and permanently resided in bungalow No. 6, Race‑course Road, Lahore and that he was so residing on the date of issue of the certificate Le., the 20th September 1951. Ex. B was a letter from the Permit Officer, Government of Punjab, to the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India saying that there was no objection to the permit granted to Mr. Bhandari by the aforesaid High Commissioner on 20th June 1951 being converted into one for permanent residence. The witness sent these documents to the Rehabilitation Commissioner with his report marked Ex. C. The Rehabilitation Commissioner passed the order dated 14th November, 1951 marked Ex. D, that the R. O. (Legal) (Mr. Muhammad Hussain) should show him the papers regarding the nationality of Mr. Bhandari and obtain his instructions before 17th November 1951. The witness made the report Ex. E on the same day saying that the Nationality Certificate was sent with his previous report Ex. C and sent some other Nationality Certificates which had been produced before him. The Rehabilitation Commissioner then passed the order Ex. F, that there was no alternative but to withdraw the application for cancellation of the restoration order. The witness said that he had made no misrepresentation to the Rehabilitation Commissioner and the statement made by him that he had been instructed not to pursue the petition for cancellation of the restoration order dated 14th May, 1948 was a perfectly honest and true statement based on the order of the R. C. The witness was asked by the R. O. (Legal) whether he was aware of the order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, dated 16th December, 1950, in which it was said that Mr. Bhandari was going to apply for Pakistan nationality. The witness replied that he was aware of that order and had, therefore; every reason to suppose that the documents marked A and B were obtained by Mr. Bhandari, in accordance with his undertaking mentioned in the Custodian's order dated 16th December. 1950. The evidence of the R. C. (Mr. Fida Hassan) was recorded at a later stage as P. W. 6, but may well be considered here in conjunction with the evidence of the R. ‑O. (Legal). Mr. Fida Hassan deposed that he had received a report dated 7th November. 1951 marked C from Mr. Muhammad Husain. He made enquiries in connection with that report and passed the order dated 14th November, 1951 asking for papers regarding the nationality certificate of Mr. Bhandari and directing the R. O. (Legal) Mr. Muhammad Hussain to obtain necessary instructions from him before 17th November, 1951 when the case was fixed for hearing before the Custodian. The R. O. (Legal) referred him to the documents marked A and B and the file relating to the nationality certificate of Mr. Bhandari. After seeing these documents he passed the order that the proceedings for cancellation of the restoration order should be dropped. He also directed that the Chief Secretary should be requested to consult the Rehabilitation Department in future before granting Pakistani Nationality Certificate and he understood documents A and B to be nationality certificates. The witness had served as Home Secretary and Chief Secretary before assuming the office of the Rehabilitation Commissioner in 1950 and he knew that non‑Muslims residing in Pakistan were required to obtain permits for permanent residence in Pakistan if they wished to stay here. After they had done so they were treated for all practical purposes as Pakistan citizens. The witness clearly deposed that he did not consider that the R. O. (Legal) Mr, Muhammad Hussain had practised any fraud on him by referring to documents marked A and B as nationality certificates. He had read those documents himself and believed them to be nationality certificates. The next witness produced by the Rehabilitation Authority was the respondent Mr. Bhandari tie said that he was born and bred in the territories now comprising Pakistan and wished to remain here. At the time of the Partition he had gone to Dalhousie for the summer. On his return to Lahore his property was restored to him by order dated 10th May, 1948. After a month or so he went to India owing to the illness of his mother and as he was unable to get any rent from his property in Pakistan or from his property in India, he took up temporary employment as Assistant Secretary in the Rehabilitation Department for a short time. His mother died in 1949 and he fell ill. When the Rehabilita tion Authority filed the first petition for setting aside the restoration order, he came to Lahore and asked the Custodian for a little time to complete his treatment in Delhi and return to Pakistan. The Custodian gave him 3 months and he came back to Lahore within that time. On 12th September, 1951 he obtained a permit for permanent residence in Pakistan and since then he had been living here permanently. Until then he had been coming here on temporary permits which expired after 2 months and he had to go back to India to obtain a new permit. His property in India was ancestral and belonged to him and his brothers jointly. The brothers who lived in India looked after that property and he did not know whether his share had been declared to be evacuee property or not. The house in Dalhousie belonged to him exclusively. His son died in Kasauli on 22nd December, 1951 and on hearing about it he went to India 2 days later. After the death of his son he had a nervous breakdown and returned to Pakistan about 6 months after the death. He remained here for about 2 years and then went in February, 1954 on account of the marriage of his other son. He went on the authority of a Pakistani Passport Ex. PK issued at Lahore on 28th January, 1954 in which he was described as a citizen of Pakistan. Ex. PK/1 is a copy of that Passport. He said that he wished to live in Pakistan because this was his home and his property was here. He had no other means of‑ livelihood. He had applied for Pakistan Nationality vide Ex. P. G. dated 23rd December, 1950 in which he declared himself to be a Pakistan National and expressed the intention of staying in Pakistan permanently. As there was some delay in the framing of the rules regarding the grant of Pakistani nationality, he wrote a letter to the Permit Officer on 11th August, 1951 (Ex. D.. E.) praying that he may, in the meantime, be given a permit for residing permanently in Lahore. On 1st August, 1953, he was given a certificate of domicile under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, marked Ex. D.

1. He produced an affidavit of Kh. Iltaf Ali (Ex. D. K.) showing that Mr. Bhandari had gone to Karachi in July, 1952 and had stayed there continuously till 21st April 1953. Ex. D. L. is a certificate from Co. Jalal Shah saying that Mr. Bhandari had been under his treatment since August, 1952 to April, 1953 Ex. D. M. is a letter dated 21st April, 1953 from Grindley's Bank Ltd., Karachi saying that Mr. Bhandari had been operating upon his account personally since July, 1952. Mr. Bhandari swore that he had never made an application for allotment of any evacuee property in India in lieu of the property belonging to him in Pakistan which had cost him about Rs. 2,75,

000. After obtaining the domicile certificate dated Ist August, 1953, he again applied for Pakistani Nationality vide Ex. P. L. Another witness produced by the Rehabilitation Authority was Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad Khan, Editor of the Weekly Iqdam. He said that he had been seeing Mr. Bhandari in his house in Lahore on Race‑course Road off and on. He was unable to say that Mr. Bhandari had been continuously absent from Lahore for a period of 4 years since 1950. Mr. Maqbool‑ur‑Rehman, Passport Officer, Government of Pakistan (P. W. 5) said that the system of issuing permits was discontinued in October, 1952 and replaced by the International System of issuing Passports. The witness had issued a Passport (Ex. P. K./1) dated 28‑1‑54 to Mr. Bhandari in which the latter was described as a citizen of Pakistan but he was told that the question of nationality will have to be decided later on. The Passport was only for a limited period. The Punjab Government had given permission that Mr. Bhandari's permit to visit Pakistan may be converted into one for permanent residence here vide their letter Ex. P. B. dated 12‑9‑

51. The witness proceeded to say that after some correspondence subsequent to the abovementioned letter from the Home Secretary, Punjab the Chief Secretary, Punjab Government received a letter No. 11/39/51‑POI(1), dated 13th September, 1952 from the Under Secretary to the Government of Pakistan saying that the conversion of the temporary permit of Mr. Bhandari into one for permanent residence in Pakistan could not be allowed and Mr. Bhandari should leave Pakistan forthwith. The witness was unable to explain how in spite of this order Mr. Bhandari had continued to live in Pakistan without any steps being taken to secure his expulsion. The witness had taken charge as Passport Officer in October, 1953. He had taken over from Mr. Ahsan who, in his own turn, had taken over from Mr. Hussain. The letter of the Punjab Government dated 12‑9‑51 (Ex. P. B) to the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India saying that the Punjab Government had no objection to Mr. Bhandari's permit being converted into one for permanent residence in Pakistan was signed by Mr. Hussain. The witness was unable to find the application dated 3‑7‑52 said to have been made by Mr. Bhandari and to have been referred to in the alleged order of his expulsion. The witness was further unable to point to anything on the record to show that any action was taken to implement the alleged order of expulsion. The letter dated 24‑5‑52 from the Chief Secretary, Punjab, alleged to have been referred to in the alleged order of expulsion dated 13‑9‑52 was stated not to be in the office and was, therefore, not produced. After this statement of Mr. Maqbool‑ur‑Rehman the petitioner filed an application, dated 1st November 1954, saying that the letter dated 30th ‑September 1952 referred to by the witness as refusing to convert the petitioner's temporary permit into one for permanent residence was never communicated to him and the petitioner's application dated 3rd July 1952, on which the letter from the Central Government, dated 13th September 1952 was said to have been issued was for the grant of Pakistani Nationality and not for the conversion of the temporary permit into one for permanent residence. This had been allowed vide Exh. P B, dated 12th September 1951. It was further stated in para. 4 of this application that the petitioner had been asked by the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan vide letter dated 25th June 1953 (Exh. D‑Z) to make an applica tion for Pakistani Citizenship in the appropriate form. The petitioner accordingly made the application on l,st August 1953 (Vide Exh. P. 1) which he was informed was receiving the consideration of the Government and that the Custodian was informed about this by the Home Secretary, vide letter No. 30830/53/DBB‑6P, dated 15th December 1953, in which it was enquired whether Mr. Bhandari had asked for a declaration that he was not an evacuee and his property should be restored to him. The Custodian replied by letter Exh. DCC, dated 21st December 1953 that the property of Mr. Bhandari was restored to him by order of the Custodian dated 10th May 1948, but the Rehabilitation Authority had made an application on 16th January 1953 for a revision of that order. This letter was acknowledged by the Home Secretary Exh. vide DDD, dated 17th February 1954 in which the Custodian was asked to communicate his final decision in the revision petition as it was required for deciding the application of Mr. Bhandari for the grant of Pakistani citizenship. As the revision petition has not yet been decided the question of the grant of Pakistan citizenship to the petitioner is still pending. In defence Mr. Bhandari produced Mr. Peter Paes of. Grindley's Bank (D. W. 1). He produced 92 cheques drawn by Mr. Bhandari on the Karachi and Lahore offices of the Bank which were cashed by Mr. Bhandari himself at the counter as shown by the endorsements at the back of the cheques. The cheques were drawn during the period July 1952, to August 1953 as shown by lists DW1/1 and DW1/2. The next witness was Mr. Abad Ahmad Khan, retired D. I. G. Police, Punjab (D. W. 2) who said that he had known Mr. Bhandari since 1950 as he had been living quite close to his house. Since 1950, Mr. Bhandari had been living continuously in Lahore except for a few brief visits to India where he had to go once owing to the death of his son and again for the wedding of another son. Mr. Hira Manak (D. W. 3) stated that he was a Pakistani National carrying on the business of textile import at Lahore and that he had been seeing Mr. Bhandari in Lahore where he lived continuously except for a few short periods. Mr. Hussain, Assistant Commissioner, Lahore (D. W. 4) said that he was the Permit Officer, Punjab, from May 1951, a permit in favour of Mr. Bhandari was issued and signed by the witness. The original was sent to the High Commissioner for India in Pakistan and its copies were sent to the D.

1. G., C. I. D. and the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore/ in accordance with the procedure relating to persons who were living in Pakistan when the permanent Settlement Certificates were issued to them. For issuing such a permit it was necessary to make enquires from the Police whether the applicant was a desirable person for residence in Pakistan and this enquiry, so far as the witness could recollect, was made in the case of Mr. Bhandari and no objection raised by the Police. The permit was addressed to the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India because he had the power to veto such permits but he too raised no objection to the grant of this certificate to Mr. Bhandari. On the contrary the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India had frequently extended the Pakistani Identity Certificate issued to Mr. Bhandari by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore authorising him to stay in India as a Pakistani citizen. When the permit for permanent residence m Pakistan was granted to Mr. Bhandari it enabled him to reside permanently in Pakistan and for all practical purposes such a permit‑holder was treated as a Pakistani national. Exh. PB given to Mr. Bhandari appeared from the contents thereof to be merely a No Objection Certificate for the grant of a permanent permit, but in practice this was treated as a permit for permanent residence in Pakistan because if the Government had no objection to a person's permanent residence in Pakistan, the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India never interfered in the matter. People who were residing in Pakistan, were informed whether or not the Government had any objection to their residence here and if they had none that was sufficient to entitle the persons concerned to reside here permanently. After the grant of this permit, Mr. Bhandari applied for a permit for repeated journeys to India. For the issue of such a permit it was necessary that the Deputy Commissioner should certify that the applicant was a domiciled Pakistani. This certificate, Exh. PA was duly granted to Mr. Bhandari on 20th September 1951, about a week after the grant of Exh. PB, the permit for permanent residence in Pakistan. The Passport granted to Mr. Bhandari on 28th January 1954, described him as a citizen of Pakistan and for various reasons stated by the witness he said that Mr. Bhandari was a Pakistan citizen and a Pakistani national. The petitioner made an application that the file relating to his na tionality and the correspondence between the Central and the Punjab Governments on the subject may be summoned. The R. O. (Legal) raised no objection and the file was sent for by my order dated 2nd November 1954. The file of the correspondence above‑mentioned was sent. by the Chief Secretary through an official with a letter of request that it should be treated as confidential and not shown to the petitioner. In other words privilege was claimed in respect of these documents and the file was returned. Mr, Bhandari made a supplementary statement on 24th December 1954 and swore that he had never received any letter from any official or non‑official telling him to leave this country. He further disposed that m November 1952 he had interviewed Mr, Gurmani, then Minister of Interior, regarding the question of his nationality and, later on, he saw Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Interior. Neither the Hon'ble Minister nor the Deputy Secretary told him that he had been ordered to leave the country. On 20th June 1953, he interviewed Mr. G. Ahmad, Secretary, Ministry of Interior and later on saw the Home Secretary, Punjab Government, in connection with the same matter and none of them said that there was any order for the petitioner to leave the country. He made written representation to the Ministry of Interior and the Home Secretary, Punjab, vide Exh. D. W. D. X. and D. Y. In Exh. D. W. dated 5th February 1953, addressed to the Hon'ble Minister for Interior, reference was made to the interview on 26th November 1952, and the petitioner's visit to the Deputy Secretary on the next day and it was prayed that the petitioner may be granted Pakistani citizenship certificate because he had unequivocally declared in his application dated 23rd December 1950, that he was domiciled in Pakistan and had been living in Lahore as a Pakistani National. He added that in the Identity certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner Lahore he had been described as a citizen of Pakistan and since the issue of the permit for permanent residence in Pakistan, dated 12th September 1951, he had been treated as a Pakistani national. He was born in Multan and had lived all his life in Lahore where he, had property and wished to continue living there. The C. I. D. had been con sulted before the issue of the permit dated 12th September 1951, he was not reported to be an undesirable person and there was no reason why he should not be allowed to live in Pakistan as a Pakistani subject. Exh. D. X. addressed to Mr. G. Ahmad, Secretary, Ministry of Interior, dated 22nd June 1953, and Exh. D. Y. addressed to the Home Secretary, Punjab Government, dated 1st July 1954 are to the same effect. The respondent swore that he had made no claim in India in respect of the property belonging to him in Pakistan nor had any evacuee property in India been allotted to him in consideration of that property. Except for a number of other documents, the contents of which need not be reproduced here, this concluded the evidence led by Mr. Bhandari. I have summarised the evidence produced by both sides in order to see how far the issues framed in this case have been proved. Mr. Justice Rahman had framed only one issue and that was whether the respondent had been guilty of contravening any of the conditions on which his property was restored. After considering the allegations made by the Rehabilitation Authority and the evidence placed before him the petition for setting aside the order of restoration was dismissed on 24‑11‑

51. Any breach of the conditions on the part of Mr. Bhandari prior to this date, even if pro1ved, must be taken to have been condoned by the Custodian in view of Mr. Bhandari's undertaking that thenceforth he would reside permanently in Pakistan and in view of the letter of the Permit Officer of the Punjab Government to the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India, dated 12‑9‑51, that the Government had no objection to Mr. Bhandari's temporary permit being converted into one for permanent residence in Pakistan. The statement made by Mr. Muhammad Hussain R. O. (Legal) that he had been instructed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner not to pursue the petition for setting aside the restoration order has been proved by the evidence led by the Rehabilita tion Authority itself to be a perfectly correct statement and the Rehabilita tion Commissioner has deposed that lie did not give the instructions to withdraw the petition on account of any deception pt' misrepresentations, The issue framed by me whether the instructions not to pursue the petition were obtained by the R. O. (Legal) by misrepresentation of facts must be answered in the negative. Tile second issue framed by me regarding the effect of any breach of the conditions prior to the order of the Custodian dated 24‑11‑51 has been answered already that it must be taken to have been condoned by the Custodian in view of the undertaking of Mr. Bhandari to reside permanently in Pakistan and the willingness of the Government to let him do so. One of the three issues framed by Mr. Justice Soofi is the same as the issue framed by Mr. Justice S. A. Rahman i.e. whether Mr. Bhandari had been guilty of contravening any of the conditions imposed by the Additional Custodian in his order dated 10‑5‑

48. There is no evidence that Mr. Bhandari has absented himself for any appreciable length of time from Pakistan after the order of Mr. Justice Rahman dated 24‑11‑51 and his absence before that date has been condoned. The other conditions imposed in the order of the Additional Custodian dated 10‑5‑48 are that Mr. Bhandari shall accept the rent fixed by the Rehabilitation Authority and shall not dispose of the property or any part thereof without the permission of the Custodian. There is no allegation or evidence that he has violated any of these conditions. It may be said that besides residing in Pakistan Mr. Bhandari was also required to carry on business in Pakistan in a normal manner like any other national of Pakistan. Mr. Bhandari's short reply to this is that the management of one's property is also a normal, business and he has been doing it. The second issue framed by Mr. Justice Soofi is whether the property could not be restored to Mr. Bhandari by order of the Additional Custodian dated 10‑5‑

48. This issue appears to have been framed in view of clause (c), paragraph 5 of the petition dated 16‑1‑53 in which it was said that no certificate allowing restoration from the Central Government or any other person authorised by it, as required by section 19 Ordinance XV of 1949, was produced by Mr. Bhandari. No such certificate was required when the property was restored to Mr. Bhandari on 10‑5‑

48. At that time Act VII of 1948 was in force and section 17 of that Act, which corresponds to the present section 19, did not require any certificate. This C point was not pressed by the R. O. (Legal) in his arguments and has no force in it. The third and last issue framed by Mr. Justice Soofi is whether Mr. Bhandari could not be regarded as a Pakistani national. They Identity Certificate showing Mr. Bhandari as domiciled in Pakistan. The Punjab Government's letter that they have no objection to his residing permanently in Pakistan and the Pakistani passport granted to Mr. Bhandari showing him as a citizen of Pakistan all go to show that for practical D purposes he must be regarded as a Pakistani national. Mr. Fida Hassan, Rehabilitation Commissioner and Mr. Hussian, Assistant Commissioner, Lahore, have clearly said so. It is true that Mr. Bhandari has not yet been given a Pakistani Nationality Certificate, but it appears from the Home Secretary's letter No. 3300/ 53/6P/P (D & C) dated 17‑2‑54 (Exh. DDD) that the Central Government are awaiting the decision of this case before they give or refuse to give that certificate. For the purpose of this petition I do not consider it necessary that Mr. Bhandari should have proved that he had acquired Pakistani nationality. This was not one of the conditions on which his property was restored and. there is nothing to prevent the nationals of other countries from living and owning property in Pakistan. After giving the whole case my careful consideration I am unable to hold that any just cause has been shown for cancelling the order of the Additional Custodian dated 10‑5‑48 restoring to Mr. Bhanndari the property that belongs to him. There is a legal objection also to my interfering with this order. It has already been revised and upheld by my learned predecessor Mr, justice S. A. Rahman and has merged in the ratter's order dated 24‑11‑

51. It' there was any relief available to the Rehabilitation Authority it was against the order passed in revision and not against the original order. The order in revision is a perfectly just and fair order and there is no justification for my setting it aside in review. Moreover, there is a legal objection to my interfering with this order too. It was passed on 24‑11‑51 and the petition for having it set aside was presented on 16‑1‑53, more than a year after the order was passed. Section 36, Ordinance XV of 1949, requires that all appeals and applications for review and revision must be filed within the prescribed , period. According to rule 17 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, 1950, the period prescribed is thirty days from the date of the order complained of. This period can be extended by the Custodian under section 5 of the Limitation Act if the petitioner satisfies him that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period. No cause, sufficient or insufficient, has been show for not filing this petition F within the prescribed period. The rule relating to Limitation was framed in order to be observed and this petition could have been dismissed on the ground of limitation alone ; but, I have considered all the evidence in order to see whether there is any reason for me to interfere of my own accord which I am authorised by law to do at any time. I can see no reason to interfere either with the order of the Additional Custodian dated 10‑5‑48 or with the order of the learned Custodian dated 24‑11‑

51. This petition for review and revision is, therefore, dismissed. A. H. Petitions dismissed.