SHAMIM AHMAD SHAMIM Vs. CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY, KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the footing, that the petitioner is an allottee of Evacuee property situated at Wazir Bagh and Bhagat Barzulla belonging to one Moulvi Abdul Rahim Evacuee, Custodian Evacuee Property Kashmir, the respondent herein, has issued a notice (No. 2918/SC dated 3 -1 -1978) to him, to show cause, why his allotment be not cancelled. The allotment is sought to be cancelled on the following grounds: - i) Violation of the terms of allotment orders dated 18 -4 -1966 and 9 -9 -1970, on account of failure in furnishing the under taking, as well as six monthly accounts of income and expenditure of the property allotted; ii) withdrawal, without any right or title of an amount of Rs. 15,218.00, which lay in the court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar on account of compensation for part of the evacuee property, situated at Bhagat Barzulla in proceedings under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and iii) management of the property by the Department itself to safeguard the interests of the evacuee.

(2.) THE petitioner, has challenged this order, both on grounds of fact as well as law, According to him, he was always willing to furnish the undertaking, but the Department did not get it executed. He has, in this regard, made a pointed reference to his letter dated 15 -4 -1971. On the question of six monthly returns, he has averred, that the building situated at Bhagat Barzulla is not yielding any income, whereas the building situated at Wazir Bagh has not so far yielded income enough to reimburse him for the amount which he has spent on its reconstruction with the express permission of the Custodian General. In addition, he has contended, that being nearest to the kin of the evacuee, he was not required to furnish any account under Notification No. A -653 -50 -50 - dated 6 -5 -1950. Furthermore, he has stated, that a suit is pending in the court of City Munsiff Srinagar, in which he has challenged the title of the respondent, so for as the building situated at Bhatgat Barzulla is concerned. The reason for issuing the notice, according to him, is the annoyance caused to the respondent, on account of certain writings of the petitioner against the Government as well as the Department. In short, he has assailed the impugned notice on the grounds i) that it is malafide; ii) that it was not covered by any ground mentioned in Rule 14 -of the Rules made under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Evacuee Rules and the Evacuee Act respectively) ; iii) that the petitioner is not guilty of violating any terms of conditions of the allotment orders and iv) that the respondent has no jurisdiction to cancel the petitioners allotment in view of the pendency of the civil suit relating to the property situated at Bhagat Barzulla.

(3.) THE respondent, besides tenaciously adhering to the allegations made in the impugned notice, has pleaded, that he has no knowledge of any writing of the petitioner, that pendency of the civil suit is no bar to the action proposed by the respondent, that the entire property is yielding income, that the petitioner had reconstructed the building at Bhagat Barzulla without the permission of the Custodian General and that the notice was covered by the provisions of rule 14.