MOHD ASLAM Vs. REVENUE MINISTER, J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , Mohd. Aslam, claims that he is son of one Sirajan Bibi who was wife of Mir Ali, father of the petitioner. She was sister of one Hassan Mohd son of Piran Ditta residents of Ranjani, Tehsil Samba. Hassan Mohd is said to have purchased land measuring 19 kanals in khasra No. 133, 25 kanals 12 marlas in khasra No. 139, 8 kanals and 3 marlas in khasra No, 133/him and 5 kanals in Khasra No. 139/Min at village Chack Chua, Tehsil Bishna. Hassan Mohd as also Mst. Sarajan Bibi are said to have been murdered in communal disturbances of 1947. The property of Hassan Mohd is said to have been treated as Evacuee Property by the respondents and allotted to some persons who are said to have occupied it.

(2.) PETITIONER is said to have applied for the restoration of the property before respondent No. 4. Many of his applications were not processed. However, one application seems to have been processed by respondent No. 4 who is said to have deleted the said property from the evacuee property record and ordered its restoration to the petitioner vide his order dated 16,8.1983. Part of the land ordered to be restored to the petitioner seems to have been under the possession of displaced persons namely Johd Singh, Beant Kaur and Liaq Singh. Their eviction was not ordered but proceedings under section 14 -A of the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 2006 Bk were ordered to be taken against these persons. The respondents do not seem to have processed the said application nor have they performed the legal obligation which rest on them in terms of provisions of Section 14 -A of the Act.

(3.) AN appeal seems to have been filed against the order of respondent No. 4 whereby he deleted the property in question from the registers of the Evacuee department, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The Revenue department is said to have after enquiry attested mutation No. 154 in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioner which is evidenced by Annexure -PD. Respondent No. 3 is said to have been directed to file a motion against the order of respondent No. 4 dt 16.8.1983 which came to be considered by respondent No. 1 on 3.8.1985 who passed an order restraining the petitioner to alienate the property. Respondent; are said to have slept over the matter and are not discharging the duties enjoined on them by section 14 -A of the Act. Because of the failure of the respondents to discharge their duties, petitioner is said to be deprived of the usufruct of the property. It is contended that respondents 3 and 4 cannot prefer an appeal/revision against their own order before respondent No. 1 because they are not the aggrieved persons within the meaning of Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act. Respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to pass an order or the motion which is pending before it. Even under section 30 -A of the Act, respondent No. 1 cannot pass an order cancelling the restoration of the property in favour of the petitioner.