1. This reference in the LPA has been made by Hon™ble Chief Justice under rule 23 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1975 on difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of this court on the question of maintainability of the appeal against the order of learned Single Judge dated 5 June 1992 passed in OWP No. 581/91.

2. Shakur Din and Mohammad Din were real brothers and are alleged to be owners of some property situated at Nawabad and Ploura, Tehsil Jammu. It appears that they became evacuees in the aftermath of the holocaust of 1947, their third brother, Ham Din made an application before Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu for restoration of the property allegedly belonging to his two brothers, Shakur Din and Mohammad Din on two grounds, namely, that he was the real brother of these two evacuees and that the evacuees had not been heard of since 1947 and should therefore, be presumed to be dead. The Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu vide his order dated 20 March 1967 allowed the prayer of Ham Din and restored the property in his favour, de-notifying it from the list of evacuees properties. Rohlu Khan and Ors, who claimed to be the allottees of the said land filed an appeal against this order of the Custodian before the Custodian General who remanded it to the Custodian for fresh enquiry and after holding fresh enquiry, Custodian once again vide order dated 22.3.1969 passed the order of restoration of the property in favour of Ham Din. The tenants of the land once again filed an appeal before the Custodian General who once again remanded the case to the Custodian. This time vide order dated 25 April 1970, the Custodian rejected the claim of Ham Din and aggrieved of this order of the rejection of his claim, Ham Din filed appeal before the Custodian General who on 11.2.1971, while accepting the appeal sent the case back to Custodian by issuing directions to him to record a finding once again as to whether the property could be restored to Ham Din. Against this order of the Custodian General, Rohlu Khan and other tenants filed writ petition No. 131/71 in this court, but vide order dated 9 Aug. 1973, this court dismissed the writ petition. Letters Patent Appeal was preferred, but this was also dismissed on 5 Nov. 1985. Thereafter the Custodian took up the matter in pursuance to the aforesaid order of the Custodian General dated 11.2.1971 and after making detailed enquiry, vide order dated 24 March 1986 ordered the restoration of the property in question in favour of the successors-in-interest of Ham Din who in the meantime had died. Against this order, Mamtaz Begum, one of the allottees of the land filed an appeal before the Custodian General, which was, however, dismissed on 12.3.1987. Ghulam Qadir and Ram Sarup filed separate revision petitions before the Special Tribunal against the aforesaid orders of the Custodian General. Special Tribunal vide order dated 14 Sept. 1990 allowed the revision petitions and remanded the matter to the Custodian for deciding it afresh after giving contesting parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and of producing evidence. Ghulam Mohammad respondent No. 4 in this appeal feeling aggrieved of the order of the Special Tribunal filed writ petition No. 581/91 in this court and vide the impugned judgment dated 5 June 1992, while allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge of this court quashed the order of the Special Tribunal dated 14 Sept. 1990 with the natural consequences that the orders of the Custodian dated 24 March 1986 and of the Custodian General dated 12 March 1987 were upheld.

It is against the aforesaid judgment dated 5 June 1992, passed in WP No, 581/91 that the Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu has preferred this appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. When the appeal came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court comprising of the Hon™ble S.M. Rizvi and the Hon™ble B.A. Khan, J.J, the two learned Judges vide their separate orders dated 30.10.1992 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document