MOHD SHARIEF Vs. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point which arises for determination in the present Letters Patent Appeal is whether a revision under section 30 -A of the Jammu and Kashmir Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 2006 (for short the Act) is maintainable against an order against which right of second appeal is available under section 30 of the Act.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that appellants father namely, Roshan Din R/o Tehsil Bishna applied to the Custodian under section 8 of the Act for restoration of 168 kanals of land situated Mahmoodpur, at Tehsil Bishna. It was pleaded that the land belonged to one Chura who had died in the State during 1947 riots leaving behind Roshan Din as the sole claimant of his property. The Custodian vide order dated 09.11.1976 rejected his claim. On an appeal the Custodian General on December 20, 1977 set aside the order of the Custodian with the direction to conduct fresh enquiry in the matter. Respondent Charan Dass filed an appeal before this court against the order of Custodian General bearing CIMA No. 31/1978 which was heard and disposed of by this court on 02.01.1989. The court made certain observations and directed the Custodian General to decide the appeal afresh. In compliance to the directions of this court, Custodian General re -heard the matter and allowed the appeal vide its order dated 22nd of May 1993 and restored the evacuee property in favour of the present appellant (his father Roshan Din had died during the proceedings). Respondent Charan Dass felt aggrieved of the order of the Custodian General and, filed a revision petition under section 30 -A of the Evacuee Act before the Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal considered the matter and found that since a remedy of second appeal was available, to the aggrieved person under section 30 of the Act, a revision u/s 30 -A of the Evacuees Act was not maintainable. The said respondent challenged the order of the Tribunal before this court through a petition OWP No. 30/1995 which was decided by the learned Single Judge on 21.10.1999 holding that the view taken by the Special Tribunal was not in accordance with the provisions of law and that a revision under section 30 -A of the Evacuees Act was maintainable, notwithstanding the fact that a remedy of appeal was available to the aggrieved party under the provisions of the Act. Learned Single Judge found that section 30 -A is in para -materia with section 27 of the East Punjab Evacuee Act and that the Apex Court had settled the issue in AIR 1956 SC 77.

(3.) THE appellant is aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and through the medium of present appeal has challenged the same on various grounds inter -alia that the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to Section 30 -A of the Evacuees Act is wholly unsustainable and that the authority of the Apex Court as well as the provisions of Central Evacuees Administration of Property Act referred to and relied upon by the learned Single Judge to arrive at the aforesaid conclusions were not relevant and applicable to the present case as such the finding returned by the learned Single Judge was not in accordance with the law.