JAGAN NATH Vs. CUSTODIAN GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an order dated 18 -5 -1971 passed on revision by the Custodian General, respondent No. 1, herein, against the orders dated 30 -1 -1971 and 12 -4 -1971 of the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Jammu, respondent No. 2 herein. The order runs as follows : - "Hans Raj has filed this application against the order dated 12 -4 -1971 passed by Custodian E.P. Jammu whereunder he has been evicted from E.P. house No. 539 situated in Mohalla Jatkatian Jammu. The applicant had been ordered to pay Rs.200/ - towards the liquidation of the arrears of rent to start with and thereafter continue to pay Rs.20/ - per month till the arrears were fully liquidated. The Custodian in his order has stated that the applicant has failed to pay the amount of Rs.200/ - and he has failed to pay the instalments due in the month of May and from October to January It has also been remarked in the order that the applicant was not residing in the house. The applicant has now stated that he had gone to some place outside the state in connection with some private business, and he had paid the amount of Rs.200/ - in time and that he had also been paying instalments. The observations of the Custodian to this effect were incorrect. In support of this contention he had produced the receipts issued by the office of the Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu. The counsel for the Department has conceded that the remarks of the Custodian in respect of nonpayment of Rs.200/ - and further instalments were not correct. From facts narrated above it is clear that the order has been made by the Custodian without applying his mind and on the basis of facts which were patently incorrect. Advantage has been taken this case of the routine -absence of the applicant from the house. The order is thus bad in law and not maintainable. Accepting this application, therefore, I vacate the order in revision. The applicant be put back into possession of the house in question."

(2.) IT appears that, by his order dated 30 -1 -1971, the Custodian cancelled the allotment of a portion of the Evacuee Property house No. 539 held by Shri Hans Raj, respondent No. 3, on the ground that he had failed to comply with the orders of the Custodian regarding liquidation of arrears of rent and allotted the same to the petitioner, Shri Jagan Nath, on condition that he paid the arrears plus the usual rent in the manner set out in the order. Respondent No. 3 applied for review but his application was rejected by the Custodian by his order dated 12 -4 -1971. He therefore went up in revision to the Custodian General who passed the impugned order. The petitioner has filed this writ and challenged the order.

(3.) APPEARING for the petitioner Mr. Som Dutt Sharma, relying on Section 10(1) of the Evacueesâ„¢ (Administration of Property) Act, argued that once the allotment was made by the Custodian in favour of the petitioner, rightly or wrongly, it could not be cancelled except as provided in Rule 14 of the Evacuee (Administration of Property) Rules and since none of the requirements of that Rule were fulfilled in the instant case, the cancellation was bad in law and even without jurisdiction. In reply Mr. Sehgal, appearing for the respondent No. 3, urged that every order made by the Custodian under the Act including an order of allotment is subject to revision under Section 30 -A thereof by the Custodian General and that, upon such revision, the Custodian General is competent to set aside the order if it is vitiated by any illegality or impropriety.