As per case facts, the Custodian declared respondents' properties as evacuee property, an order later reversed on appeal by the Custodian due to insufficient evidence. The Custodian-General, invoking powers under ... the central Act, revised this order and mandated a fresh disposal. Subsequently, the Custodian again declared the properties as evacuee property, prompting respondents to appeal and file writ petitions with the High Court. The High Court concluded that the Custodian-General lacked revisionary jurisdiction and that appeals from the Custodian's final order were admissible to it, deeming the order erroneous. The question arose whether the Custodian-General had the jurisdiction to revise the Custodian's order and whether an appeal from the subsequent order lay to the High Court, considering the successive repeals of state acts by central legislation. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred. It held that the Custodian-General possessed the necessary jurisdiction under the central Act to revise the Custodian's order, considering the legislative intent to establish a central organization for evacuee property management and the successive saving clauses. The Court further clarified that the right of appeal from the Custodian's order lay to the Custodian-General, not the High Court, as subsequent legislation had superseded the earlier appeal provisions by necessary intendment, providing an alternative forum.