LexGHULAM QADIR versus SPECIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c GHULAM QADIR v. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS. OCTOBER3, 2001 [M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Jammu Kashmir State Evacuees (Adminstration of Property) Act, 2006 (1949 A.D.). - Sections 2, 8, 14 and 30: Evacuee-Meaning of-Claim in evacuee properties-Custodian rejected the prayer-Jn appeal, Custodian General remanded the case for fresh order on certain points-During pendency of matter; Will executed by the claimant in favour of ihe appellant-Grant of Probate-Custodian held, Probate Court .D does not establish more than the factun~ of 'Will'-Not amount to conferment of Title-Appeal dismissed-Appellant preferred another Application-Rejected on the ground that appellant not related to original owner and claimant could not will away the property not devolved upon her but vested in Custodian.- Another Custodian accepted the claim but allowed I/4th share-Appeal before Custodian General-Remand to Custodian-Custodian held Appellant entitled E to whole disputed property-Tenant!allottee preferred revision petition- Custodia!l General set aside the order of Custodian-Appellant filed revision petition before Janmzu & Kashmir Special Tribunal-Revision allowed-Writ Petition by the tenants-allottees-Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that Petitioner had no locus standi-Division Bench held : Appellant F not entitled to claim the property which continue to vest in Custodian-Tenants entitled to remain in possession-On appeal, held: Tenant's rights and interests affected adversely-Hence, they are necessary Parties and have Locus standi- On merits, appellant's claim rejected. G Sections 8 and 14 : DistinCtion between-Discussed-Held, Section 8 outlived its. utility- Application qfter 12 years cannot be entertained under Section 8-However; such application could be entertained 'under Section 14 as and when the evacuee returns back. H Section 30 : 504 - GHULAM QADIR v. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL 505 Scope of power of revision-Held, the power is not hedged or A circumscribed-Wuie amplitude to set right any illegal, unfair unjust or untenable order passed under the Act-Will-Probating of-Probate Court does not establish more than the factum of Will-Does not confer any title. One S claiming to be the daughter of an evacuee preferred her claim in terms of Section 8 of the J&K State Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act in respect of properties situated in Jammu. The Custodian rejected the prayer for restoration of property as huge amount was spent on reconstruction of the property. However, he granted maintenance allowance. Applicant preferred an appeal before Custodian General, who remanded the case back to Custodian for fresh orders. In the meanwhile applicant executed and registered a 'Will' in favour of appellant to inherit her property after her death. The application was dismissed for default and applicant died thereafter. The appellant in continuation of earlier application of S preferrec' another application claiming his right over the disputed property. The Custodian, while disposing of the application, held that the property in dispute belonged to someone else, which was taken over by the Evacuee Property Department, as there was no claimant to the property and the same was reconstructed. The appellant was having no relation with the Original Owner of the property and S could not will away the property which had not devolved upon her, but vested in the Custodian at the time of execution of 'Will'. Despite disposal of the application, another Custodian again dealt with the matter under Section 8 of the Act and accepted the claim of S, and held that appellant was entitled to 1/4th share of the property of S. The appellant , was also appointed manager for remaining 3/4th share of Evacuee property and to render accounts. Not fully satisfied with the Order, Appellant preferred an appeal before Custodian General, who remaned the case back to Custodian for fresh enquiry. Again, the Custodian allowed the claim of the appellant to the whole of the disputed property. Tenants on the disputed property preferred a Revision Petition under Section 30 of the Act before the Custodian General who set aside the order of Custodian. The appellant approached the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal for revision of the said order. Tribunal set aside the order of Custodian General and restored the order of 'Custodian'. The tenant-allottee preferred Writ Petition, which was dismis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.