EVACUEE PROPERTY DEPTT Vs. ZAHOOR-UD-DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISTRICT Assistant Custodian, Rajouri on February 26, 1984 restored land measuring 15 -Kanal 4 -marla under survey Nos. 411,414 and 415 situated in village Rampur Rajouri to the extent of 3/4th share, belonging to the deceased -evacuees, in favour of Zahood -ud -Din, respondent No. 1. In revision filed before the Custodian General by respondent No.1, learned custodian General on Nov. 12, 1984 while accepting revision petition restored to respondent No. 1 remaining 1/4th share of Abdul Gafoor evacuee after deleting its entry from the revenue record. The Custodian General On Oct. 10, 1985 suomoto initiated proceedings for review of his earlier order and in this regard he issued notice to the parties concerned. Afterwards, after hearing the concerned parties he passed an order on Feb 14, 1986 holding that he was not competent under law to Initiate the proceedings. Evacuee Property Department, through Custodian, Jammu has filed this petition for quashing the above said order of the Custodian General

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that the above said property belongs to one Mohi -ud -Din Assi, petition writer whose estate devolved on his sons, Abdl Gafoor, Abdul Aziz and Nazir Ahmed, who migrated to Pakistan during Indo -Pak conflict of 1965 and was declared as evacuee property and afterwards land was placed on spurdnama, of one Maqbool Hussain. Zahoor -ud -Din, respondent No. 1, claimed to be entitled to the restoration of the above said property on the ground that sons of Mohi -ud -Din Assi actually died in the State and Abdul Gafoor having migrated to Pakistan died there, petitioner has thus criticized the order of the District Assistant Custodian Rajouri on various reasons.

(3.) PETITIONERS further case is that after making an order on April 12.1934 by the Custodian General Department received information and evidence, documentary as well as in the shape of affidavit showing that evacuees had not died in Pakistan and are alive there whereupon Custodian General decided to review the matter. He afterwards passed the impugned order, without giving any reasons and that cannot be treated to be an order in the eyes of law. Exercise of power of review was to be done in accordance with provision of order 47 C.P.C. as held by this court in Ragunath Singhs case and a bare reading of the order of respondent No.2 dated October 10, 1985 would show that he had ordered review of the order passed by his predecessor once having done so, there was no option for respondent No, 2 except to hear the review passed on merits and decide it.