CUSTODIAN EVACUEES PROPERTY, JAMMU Vs. HARI KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition on hand is directed against order of J&K Special Tribunal dated 27.10.2008 whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order of Custodian Evacuees Property Jammu-petitioner herein, under section 6 of Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Act) declaring the property left by Shri Bader-din an Evacuees, at W. No. 7 Basohli, as Evacuees Property. The background facts are as under:

(2.) Shri Kewal Kapoor S/o Shri Gurdayal Kapoor, R/o W. No. 7 Basohli, on or immediately before 16.8.2007 brought it to the notice of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 herein was unauthorizedly raising construction on the landed property left behind by Shri Bader Din who had migrated to Pakistan. Respondent no. 2 prayed that the property be declared Evacuees Property under section 6 of the Act and steps taken to protect the property from encroachment and unauthorised sale.

(3.) The order dated 27.10.2008 of Special Tribunal, Jammu is called in question in this petition on the ground that the impugned order has been made in a slipshod manner and depicts non application of mind by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is said to have selectively placed reliance on record and ignored to notice that Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu had earlier vide No. 486/AP dated 28.7.2004 and 18-19/2001/AP dated 2.3.2004 directed the Assistant Custodian to proceed against Shri Krishan Gopal, who was reported to have demolished existing structure of Evacuee Bader Din as also the report submitted by Palwari Halqa, Basohli that he was interfering with the property in question. The Tribunal is said to have erroneously placed reliance on observations of Assistant Custodian and Deputy Custodian dated 2.12.2005 and 26.2.2005. It is insisted that order dated 16.8.2007 is in accordance with law and not liable to be revised/reviewed by the Tribunal. It is further pleaded that Tribunal has erroneously placed reliance on Civil Court proceedings, without noticing that no issue as regards the property in question being Evacuee Property, was raised in the Civil proceedings.