MAH1nder NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, heirs of one Anwar Hussain, have filed this writ petition against the order of the Deputy Custodian- General of Evacuee Property, passed in Revision No. 444-R/up/71, dated 13th July, 1973, whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioners, was dismissed on the ground that the said revision petition was barred by time. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition as contained in the writ petition, are that the petitioners, and respondents Nos. 2 to 8 (who are children of Jarran Husain) have a common ancestor in Sardar Ali. ( 3 ) SARDAR Ali died prior to the partition of the country. On partition of the country, two of his sons Raze Hussain and Sarwar Hussain went to Pakistan in 1947. The two other sons of Sardar Ali, Jarar Hussain and Anwar Hussain, continued to stay in India, 2 and continued to till the Agricultural land which belonged to Sardar Ali. ( 4 ) ON the death of Sardar Ali, his aforesaid four sons Jarar Hussain, Raza Hussain, Sarwar Hussain and Anwar Hussain had acquired equal interests in the agricultural holdings of Sardar Ali. ( 5 ) WHEN Raze Hussain and Sarwar Hussain migrated to Pakistan in 1947, their shares in the agricultural holding were declared evacuee properties. These properties which were declared to be evacuee properties, are 8 plots of land bearing Khasra Nos. 42, 154, 57, 1854, 1945, 1858, 1845 and 1884, measuring 9. 13 acres situated in village Naugawan Sadat, Tehsil Amroha, Distt. Moradabad (U. P. ). ( 6 ) WHAT is impugned is a sale certificate which is dated 2nd March, 1963. This sale certificate is filed as Annexure R-l to the counter-affidavit, and reads as under : "form NO. X CERTIFICATE OF SALE Government of Indiainistry of Works Housing and Supply Office of the Asstt Custodian of Evacuee Property, BAREILLY ZONE, BAREILLY. This is to certify that Shri Jarar Hussain s/o Sardar Ali, r/o Naugaon Sadat, Teh. Amroha has purchased at a sale by public auction/negotiations held in pursuance of the powers conferred upon me under S. 10 (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act XXXI of 1950 on the 22nd day of Feb. , 1963 the property described in the schedule. Schedule: Plots Nos. 42 (2. 00), 154 (4. 72), 57 (1. 04) 1854 (0. 57), 1945 (0. 12), 1858 (0. , 1963 the property described in the schedule. Schedule: Plots Nos. 42 (2. 00), 154 (4. 72), 57 (1. 04) 1854 (0. 57), 1945 (0. 12), 1858 (0. 34), 1845 (0. 23), 1884 (0. 23), total 8 plots 9. 31 acres situated in village Naugaon Sadat, Teh. Amroha, Distt. Moradabad belonging to Sri Raza Hussain and Sarwar Hussain Evacuees to the extent of full share for Rs. 375. 00 (Rs. Three Hundred Seventy Five only ). Given under my hand and seal of my office. 2nd day of March, 1963. (S. R. GOEL) Assistant CUSTODIAN Evacuee Property Bareilly Zone, Bareilly. ( 7 ) IT is to be noted that this sale certificate is with respect to "public auction/ negotiations" by which 9. 13 (wrongly mentioned as 9. 31 in Annexure R-l acres of land situate in village Naugaon Sadat in Tehsil Amroha, Distt. Moradabad, which belonged jointly to Raza Hussain and Sarwar Hussain Evacuees, to the full extent of their share, was sold for a sum of Rs. 375. 00 only. In other words, the land was sold by "public auction/negotiations" at the rate of Rs. 41. 07 p. per acre about or Rs. 8. 00 per bigha or 1000 sq. yds. ( 8 ) IN my view it is not possible to accept that agricultural land was available at the rate of Rs. 40. 00 per acre or Rs. 8. 00 per bigha, anywhere in India in March, 1963. It appears on a bare reading of the sale certificate that the same is not above board as the method by which the sale is purported to have taken place is by "public auction/negotiations". "negotiations" must exclude "public auction" and "public auction" must exclude "negotiations". When sale was by one of the methods, the other must necessarily be excluded public auction and private. negotiations cannot be equated appears to have been done by this sale certificate. Public auction would necessarily mean that there is public notice for holding of this auction. No such public notice has been appended to the counter-affidavit to the writ petition. When sale was by one of the methods, the other must necessarily be excluded public auction and private. negotiations cannot be equated appears to have been done by this sale certificate. Public auction would necessarily mean that there is public notice for holding of this auction. No such public notice has been appended to the counter-affidavit to the writ petition. If the sale has taken place by private negotiations, then there is no reason why other co-sharer, the brother of the evacuees, that is to say Anwar Hussain, had not been given any notice of the intended sale, as he was similarly situate as Jarar Hussain, and there was no reason to exclude him from private negotiations. It is obvious that if two persons who are co-sharers, are made to bid against each other, the price fetched would approach the market price. ( 9 ) BESIDES this, there is another legal infirmity in this matter, and thaf is apparent on the reading of S. 10 (2) (o) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The said provision reads as under : "10. Powers and duties of the custodian generally. (1) Subject of the provisions of any rules that may be made in this behalf the Custodian may take such measures as he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of securing, administering, preserving and managing any property and generally for the purpose of enabling him satisfactorily to discharge any of the duties imposed on him by or under this Act and may, for any such purpose as aforesaid, do all acts and incur all expenses necessary or incidental thereto. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-s. (1), the Custodian may, for any of the purposes aforesaid: (a)and (b) xx xx xx xx xx (o) transfer in any manner whatsoever any evacuee property, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or agreement relating thereto : Provided that the Custodian shall not sell any immovable property or any business or other undertaking of the evacuee, except with the previous approval of the Custodian General. " ( 10 ) THE bare reading of the abovesaid provisions establishes that proviso to S. 10 (2) (o) makes itandatory that no immovable property can be sold by the Custodian without the previous approval of the Custodian-General. " ( 10 ) THE bare reading of the abovesaid provisions establishes that proviso to S. 10 (2) (o) makes itandatory that no immovable property can be sold by the Custodian without the previous approval of the Custodian-General. ( 11 ) IN the instant case there is no plea that prior permission of the Custodian- General of Evacuee Property had, been takenby the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly, prior to the sale of the shares of the evacuees Raza Hussain and Sarwar Hussain. No such permission has been asserted in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. The lack of such permission, in view of the statutory provision, is fatal to the validity of the sale certificate, and the purported sale and the sale certificate dated 2nd March, 1963 cannot be sustained. ( 12 ) THE instant writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 13th February, 1973 of the Deputy Custodian- General, Evacuee Property. The Deputy Custodian-General has disposed of the revision only on the ground of limitation. ( 13 ) POWER of the Custodian-General to entertain revision petition is contained in S. 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which reads as under : Power of the revision of Custodian- General: "the Custodian-General may at any time either on his own motion or on application made to him in this behalf call for the record of any proceedings in which any Custodian has passed an order for the purpose of ; satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit. I Provided that the Custodian-General shall not pass an order under the sub-section prejudicial to any person without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. Explanation : The power conferred on the Custodian-General under this section may be exercised by him in relation to any property notwithstanding that such property has been acquired under S. 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954)". ( 14 ) IT is bare perusal of the sale certificate which indicates that there was impropriety in issuance of it. No Sale could be effected without previous approval of the Custodian- General. No sale Certificate can be issued in such circumstances which are on the face of sale certificate suspicious. ( 14 ) IT is bare perusal of the sale certificate which indicates that there was impropriety in issuance of it. No Sale could be effected without previous approval of the Custodian- General. No sale Certificate can be issued in such circumstances which are on the face of sale certificate suspicious. In this case the sale certificate itself recites that the sale was effected by "public auction/negotiations". One of the modes was not struck out. This itself is a circumstance which indicates impropriety having been committed in the case apart from the fact that the price at which the property appears to have been transferred is low, about Rs. 8. 00 for 1000 yards of agricultural land, that too in March, 1963. I am of the view that the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property ought to have entertained this revision petition as a suo motu revision and ought not to have dismissed it or of any consideration (sic) for alleged limitation. Section 27 itself does not provide for a period of limitation. In any case, even if the revision was time barred, either the Custodian-General should have condoned the delay in filing it, or treated as suo motu revision petition, and he was in error in not entertaining the revision petition, on merits and setting aside the sale certificate, as having been issued in violation of the provisions of S. 10 (2) (o) of the Act. ( 15 ) IN the circumstances, I quash the sale certificate dated 2nd March, 1963. This writ petition is allowed. No orders as to costs, as although at one stage the respondents were represented in Court, at the stage of final hearing, nobody appears on their behalf.