R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 16/10/1954 at Annexure F Sanad at Annexure H issued in favour of respondent No. 3 on 7. 6 (which is also at Annexure K) order dated 5. 4. 1989 at Annexure I. and order dated 30/06/1956 at Annexure J. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has claimed her rights on the basis of the property purchased by her of Survey No. 433/4 of Godhra city from the original respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are no more and whose names have been deleted from the record. According to the petitioner the property was purchased by her under a registered sale-deed dated 5. 7. 1967 from these persons whose title could be traced as far back as sale-deed 11. 7. 1910 which was executed in favour of their predecessor. The claim of the petitioner is contested on the ground that the property in question had vested in the custodian through free from encumbrances under the provisions of Section 11 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951) and ultimately the property has been allotted to the respondent No. 3 who was also a tenant in respect of the portion other than of which he was a sharer. ( 3 ) IT was strongly contended by Mr. P. M. Bhatt learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner were not heard before making the orders in the years 1954 By the order which was made on 16. 1 one Rabia and Halima who are respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein were declared as evacuees on the basis of the deposition of their own brothers. By the said order the right title and interest of these evacuees in the property bearing Survery No. 433/4 as also in Survey No. 433 was declared as evacuee property. This order was tried to be challenged by the petitioner and her predecessor-in-title much after the petitioner was brought in picture by the aforesaid sale- deed and by order dated 17. 9. 1974 the Deputy Custodian General of Evacuee Property holding that the inordinate delay was not explained and that there were no circumstances for condonation of the delay rejected the Revision Application. 9. 1974 the Deputy Custodian General of Evacuee Property holding that the inordinate delay was not explained and that there were no circumstances for condonation of the delay rejected the Revision Application. It appears that this order was challenged in Special Civil Application No. 1565/1979 but the petition was unconditionally withdrawn with a view to make a representation on 2/12/1987 Now the petitioner or her predecessor-in-title could not have challenged the order declaring the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as evacuees and their share in the property in question as evacuee property. That order was not made against the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner and therefore there was no question of giving any hearing to them. The petitioner was not at all in picture and therefore the contention raised in the petition that hearing ought to have been given to her is without any basis. There is absolutely no valid ground for interfering with the said order made as far back as in the year 1954 which has been challenged in this petition. Several authorities were cited - decisions in the case of Allaudin Allabux v. M. B. Meher AIR 1952 (Bom.) 213 Barkatali v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property of India - AIR 1954 (Raj.) 214 ; Hussaini Begum v. State of Hyderabad - AIR 1952 (Hyd.) 141; Vishwanath v. The State of Madhya Bharat - AIR 1954 (MB) 171 which all have bearing the question of giving of a notice under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950 ). These authorities have no bearing since there was no question of giving any hearing to the petitioner who never was in picture in the year 1954 nor was there any question of giving any hearing to the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner who were not required to be declared as evacuees in the enquiry which was in progress. ( 4 ) MR. P. M. Bhatt the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner then vehemently argued that order dated 30/06/1956 at Annexure J to the petition passed by the competent authority under the Act of 1951 could not be sustained on the ground that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner were not given any opportunity of being heard during those proceedings which culminated in the said order which he passed under Section 11 of the Act of 1951. He argued that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner were non-evacuees and their properties could not therefore be vested in the custodian under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1951. In this context he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Hakim Khan and Others v. Regional Settlement Commissioner-cum-Custodian of Evacuee Property. reported in AIR 1961 S. C 1391. ( 5 ) IT will be noticed from the impugned order dated 30. 6. 1956 that there is a clear reference of the notice having been served on the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner namely Akbar Ali Karimbhai and Hatimbhai Karimbhai. Those notices were issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1951 There was no response from the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner or anyone else. Therefore the Competent Officer was left with no other option but to order that the properties involved in the case vested free from all encumbrances in the custodian under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1951. It appears that petitioner and her predecessors-in-title preferred a Revision Application (No. 6 of 1973) against said order dated 30. 6. 1956. The Revisional Authority found that proceedings under Section 7 of the Act of 1950 was started in respect of the said property on migration of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 who were declared tn be evacuees by the Assistant Custodian Panchamahals Godhra by order dated 16. 1 In view of that order it was held that the petitioners who had filed the Revision Application should not be allowed to challenge the composite nature of the property in those proceedings. It was noted that the Comptent Officer had issued individual and general notices to the non-evacuees who challenged it including the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner. The Revisional Authority came to the conclusion that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner had been given a proper opportunity to represent their case before the Competent Officer. The order dismissing the Revision Application was not challenged. Therefore at this distant point of time the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenged the order dated 30. 6. The Revisional Authority came to the conclusion that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner had been given a proper opportunity to represent their case before the Competent Officer. The order dismissing the Revision Application was not challenged. Therefore at this distant point of time the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenged the order dated 30. 6. 1956 by which the properties vested absolutely in the Custodian of Evacuees Property under Section 11 of the Act of 1951 There can be no dispute about the proposition that Section 11 of the Act of 1951 cannot vest in the Custodian any property which was not evacuee property; it cannot have the effect of making the entire property vest in the Custodian as evacuee property where the order under Section 7 of the Act of 1950 held that a certain share in it only was evacuee property as was the case before the Supreme Court in Abdul Hakim Khan (supra ). In the instant case however no separate share of the evacuee was determined either under the order made u/s. 7 of the Act of 1950 or u/s. 8 of the Act of 1951. Therefore. the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Hakim Khan (supra) cannot assist the petitioner. In any event it would not be in the fitness of things to disturb the position which has crystallised in the year 1956 pursuant to which the respondent No. 3 who is also said to have been in possession in his capacity as a tenant in respect of the portion of the said property of which he was not the owner was allotted the property after it had vested in the custodian pursuant to which the Sanad at Annexures H and K were issued in the year 1971 Merely because the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier petition with a view to file a representation which representation has now been rejected by the order dated 5. 4. 1989 it would not be appropriate to go behind the vesting which had already been taken place on 30. 6. 1956 pursuant to which the allotment of land has already been made in the year 1971. The representation which has been described as Appeal - representation was rejected by the authorised Custodian on 5. 4. 1989 by the impugned order at Annexure I to the petition. 6. 1956 pursuant to which the allotment of land has already been made in the year 1971. The representation which has been described as Appeal - representation was rejected by the authorised Custodian on 5. 4. 1989 by the impugned order at Annexure I to the petition. The Authorised Custodian General has taken note of the relevant factors while rejecting the application of the petitioner and it cannot he said that he has committed any impropriety or illegality in making the order dated 5. 4. 1989. Under the above circumstances there is no warrant for interference with any of the orders and the petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is with no order as to costs. .