The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Custodian General has the authority to review his own order under section 30(5) of the J&K State Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, and this power can be exercised suo moto or on the application of an aggrieved person.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is directed against order dated 26.05.2010, whereby learned Special Tribunal, Jammu in a revision petition filed by the respondents has set aside order/notice dated 01.04.2008 passed/issued by the Custodian General J&K Government under sub section (5) of section 30 of the J&K State Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, Svt, 2006 (hereinafter for short, the E.P.Act).

2. Facts leading to this petition have been stated in detail by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order, which I may, however, restate precisely: In the year, 1995 respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed an application under section 8 of the E.P. Act before the then Custodian Jammu for restoration of land under Khewat No. 34 and 35 situated in village Digiana Tehsil, Jammu. The Custodian accepted the claim of the respondents by his order dated 28.10.1998 and directed the claimants to lay claim for compensation of the said land under Section 14-A of the E.P. Act. After a period of about 14 months, 17 persons, who were in possession of the land in question, filed an appeal against the order of the Custodian before the Custodian General, who allowed the same by holding that claim under Section 8 of the Act was time barred and remanded the case back to the Custodian for passing fresh order. On remand, the Custodian by his order dated 13.11.2003 dismissed the claim of the respondents as time barred. Respondents assailed order dated 13.11.2003 in appeal before the Custodian General, who by his order dated 09.03.2005, allowed the appeal, set aside the Custodian’s order dated 13.11.2003 and upheld the Custodian’s order dated 28.10.1998.

3. Pursuant to the Custodian General’s order dated 09.03.2005, read with the Custodian’s order dated 28.10.1998, the Custodian on 25.04.2007 seems to have submitted the case of the respondents for payment of compensation of the land restored in their favour to the Custodian General. The Custodian General, however, at this stage, instead of passing order in regard to payment of compensation, after examining the record relating to the restoration of the land, by his order dated 01.04.2008 took a view that the order dated 09.03.2005 (supra) passed by the then Custodian General was not in consonance with the law and necessitates re-examination of the compensation case submitted by the Custodian. The Custodian General, therefore, resolved to satisfy himself about the correctness and legality of order dated 09.03.2005 passed by his predecessor, initiated proceedings under sub section (5) of section 30 of the E.P.Act and issued notice to the restorees, respondents herein, directing them to appear in his court.

4. The respondents instead of appearing before the Custodian General, assailed order/notice dated 01.04.2008 passed/issued by him in a revision before the learned Special Tribunal, Jammu. They assailed the order, mainly, on the ground that the Custodian General has no jurisdiction to pass such order as the Custodian General cannot suo moto review order of his predecessor. Learned Special Tribunal allowed the revision and set aside order/ notice dated 01.04.2008 taking the view that the Custodian General does not have suo moto power to review his own order as such power can be exercised only on an application by an aggrieved person.

5. The question raised for determination in this writ petition primarily and mainly is, whether the Custodian General can suo moto exercise his powers of review under sub section (5) of section 30 of the E.P.Act.

6. Mr. F. A. Natnoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Custodian General has power to review the order passed by him or his predecessor suo moto even if no application for review is filed and can review the order if case for review is made out. In support, Mr. Natnoo relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as 1976 KLJ 347. Mr. Natnoo