BAJ SINGH Vs. CUSTODIAN GENERAL, EVACUEE PROPERTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -Baj Singh, by means of this writ petition, has sought issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 1 -08 -2000 formulated by the learned Member, J & K Special Tribunal, Jammu in file No. STJ/280 titled Smt. Laj Wanti and another v. Custodian General and others. By means of the aforesaid order, the J & K Special Tribunal set aside the orders dated 12 -12 -1989 and 30 -05 -1992 passed by learned Custodian and Custodian General respectively by virtue of which land in dispute came to be allotted to the petitioner alongwith Binu Joshi, respondent -7 in equal shares, by a compromise deed entered into between the parties.

(2.) THE dispute involved in this petition pertains to the allotment of the land aggregating 2 kanals and 7 marlas contained in survey No. 1626/158 located at Village Kud. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid land was leased out by Custodian to one Binu Joshi W/O Shri Arun Joshi, respondent -7, for the purpose of self employment venture on payment of Rs. 100.00 per annum as ground rent for a period of three years in the first instance. The petitioner went in revision against the allotment order before the Custodian General to canvass its correctness. The petitioner entered into compromise with Binu Joshi,respondent -7 before revisional forum who after perusing the compromise deed entered into between the parties ordered that they will remain in possession of the evacuee property land equally i.e. 1 kanal 3 + marlas each, on payment of enhanced rent which will be fixed by the Custodian Evacue Property, Jammu and the revision came to be disposed of by the Custodian General, vide order dated 30.5.1992.

(3.) BOTH these orders dated 12.12.1989 and 30.5.1992 passed by the Custodian and Custodian General respectively became subject -matter of revision before the learned Member J & K Special Tribunal, Jammu, preferred by Smt. Lajwanti and Panjaboo, respondents -4 and 5 in the writ petition. The Special Tribunal, vide its order dated 01 -08 -2000, set aside both the orders in declaring them as invalid for having been passed at the back of the petitioners (respondents -4 & 5 herein) who were in lawful possession of the land as tenants and, therefore, legally un -sustainable. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground of the propriety and legality in this petition.