RAM (MAJOR) Vs. REVENUE MINISTER, J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India read with section 103 of the State constitution, prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed by respondent No. 1, the Revenue Minister, on April 26, 1985, with a further prayer for a writ of prohibition against respondents 1 and 2 restraining them from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute.

(2.) THE dispute pertains to the land comprised in khasra Nos. 185, 187, 190 and 197 measuring 23 kanals and 7 marlas situated in village Kattal Gujjran Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua. It is alleged that the land in dispute was allotted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1961 and he is in continuous possession of the same which is also projected in the revenue record. It is not disputed that the land is an evacuee land. The dispute started when respondent No. 3 filed an application before the Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu for the allotment of the said land in his name on the ground that he was displaced person having deficiency of land and the petitioner being a local included in his fathers family the same should be allotted to respondent No. 3. By dispossession of the petitioner, the Deputy Custodian by his order dated April 7, 1981, allotted the land in question in favour of the respondent No. 3 holding that the petitioner was included in his fathers family. The petitioner filed a revision against the said order before the Deputy Custodian General who allowed the revision and set aside the order of Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property by his order dated Mary 10, 1982 and remanded the case back to - the Deputy Custodian Jammu for passing a fresh order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

(3.) THE Deputy Custodian on remand after conducting the proper enquiry by his order dated 13. 12. 82 dismissed the application filed by respondent No. 3, holding that the petitioner was not included in the family of his father and the land in dispute was allotted to him independently. The respondent No. 3 aggrieved against the said order filed revision before the Deputy Custodian General, who accepted the same by his order dated 15. 2. 1983 and directed that the land in question be allotted to respondent No. 3. Against the said order a revision petition was filed by the petitioner which came up for disposal before the Custodian General as by the time the post of Deputy Custodian General was abolished. The Custodian General accepted the review petition by his order dated May 5, 1984, and concurred with the findings arrived at by the Deputy Custodian (Authorised) and confirmed the order of dismissal of the application of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 in his turn filed the revision before the Revenue Minister, respondent No. 1 herein, who allowed the revision by his order dated April 26, 1985, and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Custodian and Custodian General giving rise to the present petition.