HIRA SINGH Vs. CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By medium of this writ petition the order dated 16-7-1993 passed by the Jammu and Special Tribunal, Jammu hereinafter for short referred to as Tribunal Jammu, dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner, has been challenged on various grounds. .

(2.) The facts of the case are stated, as under: From the perusal of annexure "A" to the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner had filed an application before the Custodian, Evacuee Property Jammu, as Ex-officio Provincial Rehabilitation officer for allotment of land, comprising of Khasra No. 641 (3 Kanals 15 Marlas) and 816/651 (5 Kanals 19 Marlas) in his favour. On examining the record, the Custodian found that the said land was duly recorded on contract basis in the name of Hans Raj and others, who had violated the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. As regards entitlement of the petitioner to allotment of the land inquestion, the Custodian has stated that from the perusal of record it was revealed to him that the Provincial Rehabilitation officer by his order dated 11-1-1960 had allotted 9 Kanals 13 Marlas of land to him comprising of Khasra No. 32 in village Lehanpur which was objected to by some persons and they challenged the same before the Custodian General, who after setting aside the order had remanded the case to Provincial Rehabilitation Officer. The Provincial Rehabilitation Officer in turn remanded the case to Tehsildar, who by his order dated 3-8-1985 held that the said land was Shamilat Deh, and therefore; could not be allotted to a displaced person. The petitioner who was as such left with the deficient land was directed to make efforts for allotment of alternate land. In this view of the matter, the Custodian cancelled the lease order of Hans Raj and others in the land referred to above and allotted the same to the petitioners as an alternate land vide his order dated 18-1-1990.

(3.) The perusal of annexure "A/1"shows that some persons filed a revision petition before the tribunal Jammu challenging the said order of Custodian. However, the said revision was dismissed later on as not pressed on 9-10-1992 by the Tribunal Jammu.