GHULAM MUSTAFFA Vs. CUSTODIAN GENERAL EVACUEE PROPERTY JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in this writ petition are aggrieved by the order passed by the Custodian General, respondent No. 1, on February 16, 1985, confirming the order passed by the respondent No. 2 on May 2, 1983, whereby the present petitioner's allotment on evacuee property has been cancelled and the Assistant Custodian is directed to get house vacated and put respondent No. 3 in its physical possession.

(2.) House in dispute is situated at Reasi which was declared as an evacuee property in the year 1969 and a notification thereof under S.6 of the J and K State Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 2006, (for short hereinafter called the Act) respondent No. 3 after the said declaration by his application dated June 16, 1969, under S.8 of the Act made before the Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu, claimed that the house in question be restored in his favour as he is the only legal heir surviving and entitled to succeed over the property left by M/s. Abdul Majid, Abdul Hamid and Abdul Rashid sons of Abdullah Khan. It is further alleged that on the directions of the then Custodian the case was proceeded and enquired by the then Assistant Custodian Reasi who submitted his report with the recommendations that the respondent No. 3 is the only legal heir of the house having blood relations with the owners who have since been killed during the riot of 1947. Thereupon the authorised Deputy Custodian respondent 2 with a notice to the petitioners who were admittedly in possession as lessees of the house in question found that out of the owners one Shri Abdul Rashid was alive and resides in Pakistan. Learned Deputy Custodian, therefore, refused to restore the property in favour of the respondent 3. However, allotted the same in his favour under Cl. (1) and sub-sec. (2) of S.9 of the Act read with R. 22 of the Rules framed under the said Act based on a Government Order No. A-653-60 dated 6-5-1950, and cancelled the allotment from the name of the tenants by the same order directing the Assistant Custodian Reasi to get the house vacated by his order dated May 2, 1983.

(3.) Petitioners who are in possession of the house in question preferred the revision against the said order of the Deputy Custodian, authorised before the Custodian General, respondent No. 1, who by his order dated February 16, 1985, upheld the order passed by respondent No. 2 based on the said government order No. A-653-50 dated 6-5-1950 and maintained the directions with regard to the cancellation of the allotment in favour of the petitioners ordering the Assistant Custodian to get the house vacated. Petitioners challenge both the said orders in this petition.