CHARAN DASS Vs. J AND K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question involved in the case is whether Section 30 -A of the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 2006 (for short Evacuee Act) can be invoked without availing remedy of appeal provided Under Section 30 of the Evacuee Act before approaching the revisional authority. Putting differently, is right of appeal is a bar to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction especially when the appellate and revisional authorities are different.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this question are these. One Roshan Din resident of Tehsil Bishna applied for restoration of land Under Section 8 of the Evacuees Act. Custodian, Evacuees Property, Jammu rejected his application vide order dated 9.11.76. This order was set -aside by the Custodian General on 20.12.77 with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry. The petitioners herein challenged the order of the Custodian General in CIMA No. 31/78 which was allowed by this Court judgment dated 2.2.89 directing the custodian General to decide the appeal afresh. Pursuant to this direction, Custodian General allowed the appeal on 22.5.93 and restored the evacuee property in favour of Mohd. Sharif son of Roshan Din original applicant who had in the meanwhile died. The petitioners challenged the order of the Custodian General before the Special Tribunal in revision Under Section 30 -A of the Evacuees Act.

(3.) MR . Lehar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that merely because right of appeal is available Under Section 30, remedy under Section 3 -A is not lost and, therefore, tribunal was wrong in holding that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised where right of appeal is available under the statute. The preposition is controverted by Mr. Salaria who supports the conclusion of the tribunal.