GH MOHD JALIB Vs. CUSTODIAN EVACUEES PROPERTY, JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST floor of E.P. House No. 385 Mohalla Dalpatian, Jammu, consisting of two rooms, one store and a kitchen was allotted to the petitioner in June, 1964 which he continuously possessed till he was dispossessed on the basis of the order impugned in this writ petition. A prayer has been, made for quashing the order of respondent No. 1 dated 14th October, 1378 and for restoration of the possession of the portion of the house in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) IT is alleged that the agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was renewed for the year 1978 in the month of April, 1978, in consequence of which the petitioner paid the rent of the premises under his occupation upto ending September, 1978, which was duly received by respondent No. 1 vide receipt No. 49 Book No. 40 dated 19th Sept. 1978, The ground floor of the said house was initially,in the possession of one Ghufam Rasool Mughai which was later on allotted to respondent No. 2. The petitioner submits that while he was at Srinagar, he was informed by his son -in -law Shri Shamim Ahmad Shamim that respondent No. 2 and his wife Nusrat Bano has taken forcible possession of the petitionerâ„¢s allotted house. The petitioner addressed a letter to the Custodian General on 18th July, 1978, information him about the alleged illegal occupation of petitionerâ„¢s allotted house by respondent No. 2 and his wife. An application was also submitted to the Inspector General of Police complaining, against respondent No. 2 and his wife for having trespassed into his property. Shri Shamim Ahmad Shamim, the son -in -law of the petitioner also wrote to the Custodian General on 19th July, 1978 informing him about respondent No. 2s occupation of the property allotted to the petitioner. The Custodian General vide his letter dated 29th August, 1978, informed Shri Shamim Ahmad Shamim that the allotment of the upper portion of E.P. House No. 385 in favour of the petitioner, had not been disturbed by the department. After getting information from the Custodian General that his lease has not been cancelled the petitioner moved to Jammu alongwith his family and was surprised to see that the property allotted to him had been -occupied by respondent No 2 on the basis of the order impugned in this writ petition which is alleged to be illegal and tainted with malafides. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order which is stated to be in violation of the provisions of Evacuee Property Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is alleged that no notice was ever served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned order nor was he afforded any opportunity of being heard in the matter. The order is alleged to have been passed motivated on extraneous considerations and at the instance of some Ministers whose favourite the respondent No. 2 is alleged to be.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and the rents deposited by him has not been denied. The allegations of malafide or violation of the provisions of the Act or the Roles have bean denied and the order impugned is claimed to be a legal, valid and according to law which has been passed by respondent No. 1 who had the jurisdiction. The allotment of the petitioner is claimed to have been validly terminated. The house is alleged to be in a dilapidated condition which needed repairs, as reported by the Assistant Engineer. The petitioner is alleged to be not using the property which prompted respondent No. 1 to cancel his allotment. As the Assistant Engineer had expressed urgency of effecting necessary repairs for the preservation of the house, the department could not have waited for the petitioner and allowed the house to have crumbled down. After its completion the house is alleged to have been placed on supuradnama of respondent No. 2 and notice sent to the petitioner on 28th of September, 1978 calling upon him to occupy the house by 10.10.1978 which opportunity he failed to avail. The action of respondent No. 1 is claimed to be an example of keen sense of duty and willingness to work in statement of once tenure. The writ petition is alleged to be misconceived and liable to be dismissed.