JAGAT SINGH Vs. CUSTODIAN GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners ask for a writ of certiorari and also a writ of Mandamus. The facts leading up to this petition are succinctly as follows:

(2.) ONE Devi Ditta was allotted certain lands in village Sunderpur Tehsil R. S. Pura. The petitioners were allotted certain lands in some other village. As they did not like the lands allotted to them, they approached the Custodian Jammu with the request that the lands allotted in Sunderpur village to Devi Ditta be cancelled on the ground that he held proprietary lands in village Gulabgarh. The Custodian accordingly cancelled the allotment in favour of Devi Ditta and gave the lands to the petitioners. Devi Ditta went up in revision to the Dy. Custodian General Jammu against the Custodians order cancelling his allotment. The petitioners were made parties to that revision.

(3.) ONE of the main grounds urged on behalf ¢of the petitioners is that the Custodian General had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision when the Deputy Custodian General, to whom the powers of revision had already been delegated by the Custodian General, had dismissed the revision filed by Devi Ditta. This contention does not appear to me to be well -founded. First, the Custodian General did not entertain any revision against the orders passed by the Deputy Custodian General. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Custodian General Sought to exercise revisional jurisdiction over an authority who had concurrent jurisdiction with him.