JUDGMENT - Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J. :---Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner who claims to be co-owner of a larger property known as "Condade de Mayem" as also owner of specific portions of the property which was separated from the larger property has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus against respondents No. 1 to 3 to execute the warrant of eviction dated 10th June, 1994 and in pursuance thereto evict the respondent No. 4 from the residential house situated in the said property. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she has a family Chapel which was administered earlier by her husband and thereafter by the petitioner. Certain properties were gifted to the Chapel and in respect thereof the petitioner was appointed as "cabeca de casal" in the inventory proceedings before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji. Amongst the properties gifted to the Chapel and administered by the petitioner there exists a property known as "Borodo Molio" situated at Mayem which has been declared as evacuee property within the meaning of the Goa, Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964 (hereinafter called "the Act") and the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter called "the Rules"). In terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules the property stands vested with respondent No. 1 upon whom a duty is cast to maintain it in proper condition until the dispute regarding the restoration of the same is settled in accordance with law. Under section 7 of the Act the respondent No. 1 has been empowered to take possession of the evacuee property vested in him and is authorised to use the necessary force and requisition the aid of the police, if necessary. Upon such assistance being sought it is the mandate of the Act and the Rules that the Police Officials should be bound to render aid and assistance to respondent No. 1. It is further the case of the petitioner that although the property has been vested on respondent No. 1 since 1965 there have been serious lapses on his part in discharge of his duty. It was contended that there exists a residential house in the property attached to the Chapel of our Lady of Miracles which was meant for the residence of the Chaplain of the Chapel. It was contended that there exists a residential house in the property attached to the Chapel of our Lady of Miracles which was meant for the residence of the Chaplain of the Chapel. It is stated that by use of force respondent No. 4 is illegally occupying the said residential house. The petitioner lodged several complaints to respondent No. 1 on the matter of this illegal occupation of the house by respondent No. 4. It was therefore the duty of respondent No. 1 to ensure that the same was not encroached or illegally occupied by trespassers like respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 1 however in pursuance of the petitioner's complaint issued a notice to the respondent No. 4 on 4th November, 1993, calling upon him to hand over possession of the residential house. This was followed by a final notice dated 4th March, 1994 which contained a demand to the respondent No. 4 for surrender of possession of the said house. Despite the receipt of the notice respondent No. 4 has refused to vacate the premises and surrender its possession to the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 thereafter issued a warrant of eviction dated 10th June, 1994 whereby he and his family were ordered to be evicted forthwith from the residential house. The respondent No. 1 further ordered the use of such force as might be necessary for the purposes of eviction and taking the residential house into possession. Respondent No. 1 has addressed communication dated 10th June, 1994 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mapusa, enclosing a copy of the warrant of eviction dated 10th June, 1994. By the said letter respondent No. 1 requested the Deputy Superintendent of Police to depute Police force on 26th June, 1994 to assist the office of respondent No. 1 to execute the warrant of eviction. However, the warrant of eviction was not executed by respondent No. 1 on the ground that no Police force was deputed for rendering assistance in the matter. It was stated that on each occasion the petitioner has verbally assured that the warrant of eviction would be executed. However, in reality neither of the respondents are seriously interested in executing their own orders and discharging the statutory duties enjoined upon them by the Act and the Rules. The petitioner has been driven from pillar to post by the respondents No. 1 to 3. However, in reality neither of the respondents are seriously interested in executing their own orders and discharging the statutory duties enjoined upon them by the Act and the Rules. The petitioner has been driven from pillar to post by the respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 1 cites the non-co-operation by respondent No. 3 as the reason for failure to execute the warrant of eviction and in its turn respondent No. 3 advised the petitioner that it is the duty of respondent No. 1 to execute the orders. In short, the respondents No. 1 to 3 have failed and neglected to discharge their statutory duties. The petitioner stated that there are proceedings pending for restoration of the property in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends that in the event no action is taken against trespassers like respondent No. 4 the property may be infested with encroachers, trespassers and illegal occupants. That situation would amount to depriving the petitioner of her proprietory rights save by the authority of law. 4. An affidavit in reply was filed by the respondent No. 4 wherein he has contended that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed from this Court the fact that the property "Borodo Molio" in which he resides along with his family was declared as non-evacuee property by the Custodian of Evacuee Property vide his order dated 14th November, 1967. In view of this position the Custodian has no jurisdiction to issue any notice to him to vacate the house in his occupation. It was contended that he is occupying the said house since before the year 1971 with fixed habitation along with his family. He has stated that the house is a dwelling house and he cannot be evicted therefrom. It was further conceded that his wife Concessao was adopted in the petitioner's family since birth and he got married to her in the year 1968 and one year after he started residing in the house with the consent of the petitioner and her deceased husband. Since the property in which the house is situated is not an evacuee property respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction over the same. He had no authority to order his eviction. 5. We have heard learned Counsel and we have also gone through the documentary evidence produced on the file. Since the property in which the house is situated is not an evacuee property respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction over the same. He had no authority to order his eviction. 5. We have heard learned Counsel and we have also gone through the documentary evidence produced on the file. The respondents had indeed filed an uncertified copy of the judgment of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, dated 14th November, 1967 wherefrom it is seen that the property given to the Chapel for its maintenance was held as non-evacuee but the fact remains that although the release of the property was ordered the same still is in possession of the Custodian. This much has been acknowledged by the Custodian in his affidavit filed on 20th February, 1995 wherein he has admitted that the property is still in his possession as Custodian and has not been handed over to the Chapel. The Custodian has stated that it is therefore necessary to evict respondent No. 4 from the house of the Chaplain annexed and belonging to the Chapel of our Lady of Miracles at "Borodo Molio" property. Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that only upon restoration of the property to its owner the Custodian would be relieved from all his responsibility with regard to the protection, upkeep and maintenance of the property vested in him. Admittedly, the property was vested in the Custodian when it was declared evacuee property. Being so, it is in the fitness of things that till such time the property is released and returned to its owner the Custodian should be bound to comply with the mandate of the law and take whatever steps are required to administer, preserve and manage the property and keep it free from any encroachments from outsiders or third parties by using, if necessary, such force for taking possession of the property. This much can be drawn from the principle laid down in (The Cental Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalam etc.)1, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 743 wherein the Supreme Court by relying on the observations of Maxwel in "Interpretation of Statutes" and while dealing with the question of an Act conferring jurisdiction held that where an Act confers a jurisdiction it impliedly grants also the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution. A similar principle has been embodied also in (Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi)2, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 430, wherein the Supreme Court once again reiterated the proposition that an express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. In the aforesaid case the Supreme Court made it clear that the powers which have been conferred by section 254 of the Income Tax Act on the Appellate Tribunal on the widest possible amplitude must carry with them by necessary implication all powers and duties incidental and necessary to make the exercise of those powers fully effective. 6. The record shows that by notices dated 4th November, 1993 and 4th March, 1994 the respondent was called upon to surrender the possession of the residence attached to the Chapel in the suit property on account of illegal occupation and that he had refused and failed to vacate the same. Pursuant to this refusal respondent No. 1 has issued a warrant of eviction in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 7 of the Act directing that he should be evicted from the house and the same be taken into possession and ordering the use of such force as might be necessary for the purpose of his eviction. Being so, we fail to understand as to why the respondent No. 1 has not been able to comply with the terms of its own order. The contention sought to be advanced on behalf of the respondents that since the property was declared non-evacuee the Custodian has no authority to take any steps under the Act appears to us impermissible so much so it is not disputed that the possession of the property is still with the Custodian for the last almost 28 years from the time the property was purportedly declared as non-evacuee by order dated 14th November, 1967. In this connection the record shows that by communication dated 3rd June, 1994 and 17th June, 1994 respondent No. 1 has informed the Director of Settlement and Land Records to demarcate the property so that the Chapel property can be effectively leased in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Sonak submits that this communication shows that the possession of the property till this date vests in the respondent No. 1. Mr. Sonak submits that this communication shows that the possession of the property till this date vests in the respondent No. 1. If it is so it is only expected that respondent No. 1 should perform his duties and take necessary action to comply with the warrant of eviction. Mr. Lotlikar's further objection that the proerty does not belong to the petitioner carries also no merit bearing in mind that the petitioner admits that the property belongs to the Chapel which is being run by a Trust in respect whereof she is a trustee or administrator. But even assuming that in inventory proceedings the property has not been allotted to the petitioner, certainly respondent No. 4 who is impleaded just as a trespasser and has not been able to show any right to the suit house is not entitled to raise such pleas of defence to substantiate his illegal occupation of the suit house. Be that as it may the fact remains that since the action sought to be taken by the petitioner is against the Custodian who admits that the property is still in his possession in our judgment a writ of mandamus certainly lies against the respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 3 to execute the warrant of eviction as per law. 7. In the circumstances we are of the view that in the exercise of his statutory duty and without prejudice to any rights that the said respondents may claim to the said structures this petition can be disposed of by issuing to the parties specific directions in this regard. We accordingly direct the respondent No. 1 to send for a competent requisition to the Government, if any, as required by section 7(2) of the Act within seven days from the date of this order and the respondent No. 2 is directed to take a decision on the matter within one week thereafter. We further direct the respondent No. 1 to comply according to law with the terms of the notice and take whatever steps are required to remove any enroachments in the evacuee property namely "Borodo Molio" under his care and custody on or before 31st March, 1995 positively on the understanding that no extension shall be sought for by respondents No. 1 and 2 to execute the terms of this order. 8. 8. In the result the petition is bound to succeed and is hereby allowed. Rule accordingly made absolute with costs. Petition succeed.