JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of a proceeding under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (No. XXXI of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Ashfaq Husain is the petitioner. 2. According to his affidavit, one Abdul Salam and his sister Afsari Begum were formerly owners of house No. 7-D|12 in Mohalla Moghalpura, Moradabad. The said two persons executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the petitioner in 1943. In September 1948 Abdul Salam and Afsari Begum sold the house to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in possession over this house since 1943. In 1951 the petitioner received a notice from the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Moradabad requiring the petitioner to show cause why he should not be evicted from the house. The petitioner filed an objection to the notice. On 29-8-1953 the petitioner's objection was upheld by the Assistant Custodian (Judicial), and- the notice under Sec. 7 of the Act was discharged. Subsequently, one Barkat Ali raised a dispute with respect to this property.- The petitioner filed an objection against Barkat Ali's application, Barkat Ali's application was dismissed on 24-1-1955, and he was directed to seek his remedy in the civil court. on 12-3-1955 an Inspector of Evacuee Properties made a re-port to the effect that Sajjad and others have migrated to Pakistan. The Inspector suggested action under Sec. 7 of the Act. Accordingly, in March 1955 the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Moradabad issued a fresh notice under Sec. 7 of the Act. The petitioner filed an objection against that notice. The objection raised by the petitioner was overruled 1?y the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Moradabad on 25-9-1956. The petitioner's contention is that the present proceeding under Sec. 7 of the Act is without jurisdiction. He has, therefore, prayed that the proceedings, which commenced with the order dated 12-3-1955, should be quashed. 3. The Legal Inspector in the office of the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Moradabad has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the opposite party (the Assistant Custodian, Judicial, Evacuee Property, Moradabad). According to the counter-affidavit, the house in dispute originally belonged to one Smt. Jafri Begum. She had one son Abdul Salam and three daughters Afsari Begum, Khurshedi Begum and Noor Jahan Begum. Only two persons, Abdul Salam and Afsari Begum, sold their shares in the house to the petitioner. Noor Jahan Begum's husband is Wajid Ali. According to the counter-affidavit, the house in dispute originally belonged to one Smt. Jafri Begum. She had one son Abdul Salam and three daughters Afsari Begum, Khurshedi Begum and Noor Jahan Begum. Only two persons, Abdul Salam and Afsari Begum, sold their shares in the house to the petitioner. Noor Jahan Begum's husband is Wajid Ali. He has migrated to Pakistan. 4. According to the petitioner, the house in question was originally owned by only two persons, Abul Salam and Afsari Begum. According to the opposite party, there were other co-sharers besides Abdul Salam and Afsari Begum. For purposes of the present petition, it may be assumed that, Abdul Salam and Smt. Afsari Begum were not the sole owners of the house, and that there were other co-sharers. Mr. N. D. Pant appearing for the opposite party urged that, the present proceeding is maintainable in view of the discovery of new facts. 5. Annexure "A" to the affidavit is the notice dated 7-7-1951 under Sec. 7 of the Act. It was stated in that notice that, the property belonged to Ishaq Ahmad and Wajid Ali evacuees. Upon the objection filed by the petitioner, the order dated 29-8-1953 was passed by Sri R. S. Srivastava, Assistant Custodian (Judicial). The operative part of the order dated 29-8-1953 ran thus:- "The result is that the objection filed by Ashfaq Husain is hereby allowed. The notice under Sec. 7 issued by the A.C. Moradabad in respect of the house shall be vacated." 6. It appears that the officer, who passed the order dated 29-8-1953, was different from the officer, who issued the notice dated 7-7-1951. In the notice the property described was house No. 7|D-12. That is the property involved in the present proceeding also. The order dated 29-8-1953 amounted to a declaration that, house No. 7|D-12 is not evacuee property. 7. Mr. N. D. Pant contended that the nature of the present proceeding is different from that of the previous proceeding. It was contended that in the previous proceeding the alleged evacuees were Ishaq Ahmad and Wajid Ali, whereas in the present proceeding the alleged evacuees are certain other persons. It is, however, to be noted that, in both the proceedings the property involved was house No. 7|D-12. 8. Sec. 7 of the Act provides for notification of evacuee property. It was contended that in the previous proceeding the alleged evacuees were Ishaq Ahmad and Wajid Ali, whereas in the present proceeding the alleged evacuees are certain other persons. It is, however, to be noted that, in both the proceedings the property involved was house No. 7|D-12. 8. Sec. 7 of the Act provides for notification of evacuee property. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 7 runs thus:- "Where the Custodian is of opinion that any property is evacuee property within the meaning of this Act, he may pass an order declaring any such property to be evacuee property." 9. It will be seen that the object of action under Sec. 7 of the Act is notification of certain property as evacuee property. The declaration that certain persons are evacuees is only incidental. The essence of the proceeding is declaration of certain property as evacuee property. In the former proceeding an attempt was made to declare house No. 7|D-12 as evacuee property. That attempt failed on the former occasion. It is again being attempted by the Department to get this house No. 7|D-12 declared as evacuee property. If the present proceeding terminate in favour of the Department, the order would be in conflict with the previous order passed by Sri R. S. Srivastava on 26-8-1954. In other words, the proposed order would amount to a review of the order of Sri R. S. Srivastava, Assistant Custodian (Judicial). 10. Sec. 45 of the Act deals with the powers of the Custodian while holding inquiry, certain provisions of the C. P. C. have been made applicable. The Custodian has been empowered to enforce the attendance of witnesses, to compel the production of documents, and the power conferred with reference to any prescribed matter. The power of review is not mentioned in Sec. 45 of the Act. Rules have been framed under the Act. Rule 31 deals with appeals, review and revisions. There is nothing in rule 31 suggesting that, an order under Sec. 7 of the Act may be reviewed. 11. Sec. 26 of the Act deals with the powers of review. Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 26 states:- "The Custodian, Additional Custodian or authorised Deputy Custodian (but not a Deputy or an Assistant Custodian) may after giving notice to the parties concerned review his own order." 12. 11. Sec. 26 of the Act deals with the powers of review. Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 26 states:- "The Custodian, Additional Custodian or authorised Deputy Custodian (but not a Deputy or an Assistant Custodian) may after giving notice to the parties concerned review his own order." 12. Sec. 26 (2) makes it clear that, an Assistant Custodian has no power to review his own order. It follows that an Assistant Custodian has no power to review an order passed by his predecessor-in-office. The Assistant Custodian, who is now dealing with the matter under Sec. 7 of the Act, has no jurisdiction to review the order dated 29-8-1953 passed by Sri R. S. Srivastava. It may be that Sri Srivastava passed that order under some misapprehension. But that would not give jurisdiction to his successor-in-office to review the previous order dated 29-8-1953. The pending proceeding is without jurisdiction. 13. Mr. Pant urged that the Assistant Custodian is an administrative officer, and it is always open to an administrative officer to re-consider a matter, when fresh material bearing on the question becomes available. Sec. 26 (2) of the Act mentions a number of officers including the Assistant Custodian. Certain officers have been given the power of review; while other officers have not got the power of review. In view of the provisions of Sec. 26 (2) of the Act, it makes no difference whether the Assistant Custodian is deemed to be an administrative officer or a quasi-judicial officer. On any view, the Assistant Custodian has no power of review of his own order or of an order of his predecessor-in-office. 14. Mr. N.D. Pant urged that no final orders have yet been passed under Sec. 7 of the Act, and the matter is still pending before the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) . It was further urged by Mr. Pant that, even if the Assistant Custodian decides the matter against the petitioner, it would be open to the petitioner to carry the matter to higher authorities in appeal and revision. It is true that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal and revision. But the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to the issue of a writ of prohibition. The question whether the house is evacuee property was decided in 1953. To reagitate the same matter would amount to harassment of the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal and revision. But the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to the issue of a writ of prohibition. The question whether the house is evacuee property was decided in 1953. To reagitate the same matter would amount to harassment of the petitioner. So, in spite of the existence of the alternative remedy, the present proceedings ought to be terminated by the issue of a writ of prohibition. 15. The petition is allowed. The order of the opposite party dated 12-3-1955, the notice issued on 25-3-1955 with reference to house No. 7|D-12, and the pending proceeding under Sec. 7 of the Act are all quashed. The petitioner shall get his costs from the Opposite party.