ROMESH CHANDER Vs. CUSTODIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of respondent No.1 summarily dimissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner in his absence, the writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the orders of respondents passed against him by which he has been directed to surrender the possession of Evacuee property Khola No.1114 allotted to him.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition as ststed in the petition are that the petitioner was a resident of Mirpur and was compelled to leave his town in year 1947 which is now under Pak. Occupation. He claims to have been granted the lease of Khola (vacant piece of land) bearing No.E.P. 1114 in Purani Mandi Jammu, in the year 1958. The petitioner is alleged to have constructed a house on the said Khola with the consent & permission of the respondent No.2 & is residing there and continuously paying the ground rent at the rate of Rs.4/ - per month. The petitioner also claims to have executed the rent deed in favour of the Coustodian which was renewed from time to time. In the year 1975 and was residing there with his family After the death of petitioner father the PRO Jammu vide his order dated 20th May,1971 appoinment Kuldeep the brother of the petitioner as the successor of his father late Lala Trilok Chand. It was further ordered that Kuldeep Chander was entitled to receive the other rehabilitation benefits including that of transfer entry or allotment of plot. Respondent No.2 vide his notice dated 9 -1 -1970 called upon the petitioner to surrender the possession of the Evacuee property Khila No.1114 to the filed inspector on the ground that the petitioner had his own house at Rehari where he was residing. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No.2 and explained to him that he was residing in the house constructed on Khola No.1114 at Purani Mandi Jammu & was not residing in Rehari Colony Jammu. It was also explained to him that he was residing in the house constructed on Khola No.1114 at Purani Mandi Jammu & was not residing in Rehari Colony Jammu. It was also explained to the respondent No.2 that his brother alongwith his family was residing in Rehari. The respondent No.2 that his brother alongwith his family was residing in Rehari. The respondent No.2 however ordered the eviction of the petitioner against which he filed the revision etition which was dismissed by the respondent No.1 as stated earlier.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that the petitioners father Trilok Chand tookforcible possession of E.P. house No.1114 part of which was dilapidated without any permission from the department whereupon the warrant of eviction dated 10 -12 -1959 was issued against him. An order of eviction was passed against the father of the petitioner on 2 -9 -1963 in response to which Trilok Chand submitted a written request dated 7 -9 -1963 agreeing to settle the matter amicably & if the department did not accept his prayer he was prepared to hand -over the possession. It is Ëœfurther submitted that the father of the petitioner stated that he had spent a sum of Rs.748/ - on the construction of the house on E.P. Khola No.1114.in the meantime the father of the petitioner died whereafter the petitioner filed an applicant on 12 -5 -1964 praying for adjustment of the amount spent by him in the construction of house in the further rent. It is further submitted that the petitioner executed an agreement th the effect that he will remove the ËœMalbaâ„¢ after demolition of the constiructed house without claming any compensation for it. It is submitted that the word ËœRenewalâ„¢ in the deed executed between the parties is not denied. The construction of the house on the plot of land by Romash Chander is also denied. It is submitted that the order passed against the petitoner was legal valid and according to law.