JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner's father Bharosey Lal obtained a decree for Rs. 4,560/- and costs against Sayed Jaffar Husain in 1947. In execution he got attached some properties owned by Syed Jaffar Husain. Before the properties could be sold Syed Jaffar Husain, the judgment debtor, migrated to Pakistan and his pro. pert), was declared to be evacuee property. Bharosey Lal having died, the petitioners, who are his sons, lodged a third party claim for a sum of Rs. 6,869/2/- with the Custodian under Section 10 (2) (m) read with Rule 22 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The Custodian refused to pay the petitioners' debt. In 1956 the attached evacuee property was sold under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The petitioners came to this Court for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Writ Petition (No. 384 of 1961) was dismissed on 2nd February, 1966, on the finding that under Section 10 (2) (n) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act the Custodian could pay sums only "out of the funds in his possession". It was held that the property of the judgment-debtor having vested in the Central Government, the Custodian had no funds in his possession out of which the petitioners could be paid. No mandamus could hence issue to the Custodian Department. The plea, that the Managing Officer (Acquired Evacuee Property) Agra, who had charge of the property, should be directed to consider the petitioners' claim and to make payment, under Section 17 (2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which empowered that officer "to take such measures as he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing, administering, preserving, managing or disposing of any property in the compensation pool" was negatived on the ground that the petitioners had not made any demand for payment from that Officer' till then. The petitioners were lac at liberty to approach the Managing Officer for relief and take suitable action if necessary. Thereupon the petitioners made an application on 25th April, 1966, before the Managing Officer, respondent No. 1, praying for payment of the amount due to the petitioners under the decree. This application was rejected on 8th August, 1966, on the ground that no payment can be made. Thereupon the petitioners made an application on 25th April, 1966, before the Managing Officer, respondent No. 1, praying for payment of the amount due to the petitioners under the decree. This application was rejected on 8th August, 1966, on the ground that no payment can be made. The petitioners have come again to this Court for a writ to quash the order passed on 8th August, 1966, and for a direction commanding respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioners' application and to make payment. For the respondents it has been urged that after an evacuee property is acquired under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, it under sub-sec. (2) of that section vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Under Section 14 (1) (a) all evacuee property acquired under Section 12 including the sale proceeds of any such property and all profits and income accruing from such property, constitute the compensation Pool created by Section 14 (1) of the Act, for the purpose of payment of compensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced persons. Under sub-sec. (2) of Section 14 the Compensation pool vests in the Central Government free from all encumbrances and is to be utilised in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Under Section 8, displaced persons are to be paid compensation out of the compensation pool. That is the principal purpose for which alone the compensation pool can be utilised. Section 20-A of the Act provides an exception. Under it where any evacuee or his heir is entitled to the restoration of any evacuee property on an application made by him in this behalf under Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the property will be restored to him. In lieu thereof the Central Government may transfer any other property in the compensation pool or pay him such amount in cash from the compensation pool as the Government may deem fit. Generally, the evacuee has no interest left either in the evacuee property or its sale proceeds. It may be mentioned here that the attached property was sold on 7th January, 1956, by public auction for a sum of Rs. 38,000/-. This sale proceed went into the compensation pool under clause (a) of Section 14 (1) of the Act and vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. It may be mentioned here that the attached property was sold on 7th January, 1956, by public auction for a sum of Rs. 38,000/-. This sale proceed went into the compensation pool under clause (a) of Section 14 (1) of the Act and vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. It could be utilised only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It was urged that under sub-sec. (2) of Section 17 the Managing Officer was authorised to take such measures as he considered necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing, administering, preserving, managing or disposing of any property in the compensation pool entrusted to him. Fen the petitioners it was urged on the strength of the Supreme Court decision in Raja Bhanu Pratap Singh v. The Assistant Custodia, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1257 that the general power of administration conferred by Section 17 (2) authorised the Custodian to pay third party claims due against the evacuee. In that case the Supreme Court construed Section 10(2) clauses (in) and (n) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. Under clause (n) the Custodian was specifically authorised to pay sums to other persons if they were found entitled to the same. Under clause (in) the Custodian may pay debts due to any person by the evacuee except private persons. Under Section 17 (2) the power of the Managing Officer to secure, administer, preserve or dispose of the property in the compensation pool has been conferred for the purpose of satisfactorily discharging the duties imposed on him by the Act. The Managing Officer has not been authorised to pay any part of the compensation pool either to the evacuee or his creditors. The compensation pool is to be utilised for compensation as determined under the Act to displaced persons. Under Section 15 of the Act no property which forms part of the compensation pool and which has vested in the Central Government, is liable to be proceeded against for any claim in any manner whatsoever in execution of any decree or order or by any other process of any Court. At the instance of the evacuee or his creditor the Courts could not touch the compensation pool. Moreover, Sec-17 (2) of the Act authorises the Managing Officer to deal with any "property" entrusted to him. At the instance of the evacuee or his creditor the Courts could not touch the compensation pool. Moreover, Sec-17 (2) of the Act authorises the Managing Officer to deal with any "property" entrusted to him. The Evacuee Property which was attached by the petitioners in execution of their decree was sold by public auction in 1956. Since then that property is no longer with the Managing Officer. Its sale proceeds have vanished into the compensation pool. There is no allegation in the petition that the sale proceeds have been entrusted to the Managing Officer, respondent No. I. Section 17 (2) of the Act will not be attracted to the sale proceeds. Sec. 13 of the Act provides for payment of compensation for the evacuee property acquired under this Act, to the evacuee. It says that there shall be paid to an evacuee compensation in respect of his property acquired under Section 12 in accordance with such principles and in such manner as may be agreed upon between the Governments of India and Pakistan. The respondents had filed an affidavit stating that the Indo-Pakistan agreement contemplated by Section 13 did not materialise. The position is that the principles and the manner contemplated by Section 13 for payment of compensation to the evacuee have not yet come into existence. No compensation could hence be said to be payable to the evacuee at present. The petitioners being creditors of the evacuee would be persons interested in the compensation that may be paid eventually to the evacuee. Because they are the attaching creditors of the evacuee property, they are at least entitled to call upon the respondents to consider their claim with a view to pay it out of the compensation that may eventually be paid to the evacuee. The respondents have not stated that an agreement between the Governments of India and Pakistan as contemplated by Section 13 of the Act has become impossible or that the provisions of Section 13 will never be operative. The petitioners will be entitled to payment from out of the compensation whenever it is determined and available for payment. The Petition, therefore, succeeds in part. The respondents Nos. 1 and 4, are directed to entertain the claim of the petitioners, to adjudicate it and come to a finding whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of the amount claimed by them from the evacuee. The Petition, therefore, succeeds in part. The respondents Nos. 1 and 4, are directed to entertain the claim of the petitioners, to adjudicate it and come to a finding whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of the amount claimed by them from the evacuee. The respondents will ear-mark the compensation that may be determined payable to the evacuee under Section 13 of the Act for payment to the petitioners to the extent the petitioners' claim is upheld by them. The petitioners will be entitled to their costs. Petition partly allowed.