Adherence to procedural requirements, including timely filing of revision petitions and provision of certified copies of impugned orders, is crucial. Additionally, demonstrating sufficient cause for condonation of delay is essential in seeking revision.

1. No one is coming forward on behalf of petitioner's sides to prosecute the revision petition.

2. This revision petition has been filed on 31-03-2010, against the order dated 4-4-09. So this revision petition has been filed after about one year of passing impugned order. No application for condonation of delay has been filed. No certified copy of impugned order has been annexed and only photocopy has been annexed that too without any proper stamps.

3. Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules reads as under:-

Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules

Every memorandum of petition shall be in triplicate and shall be accompanied by two copies (at least one of which shall be certified copy) of the order appealed against.

4. A plain reading of Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules, it is evident that, every petition should be accompanied with at least one certified copy of order impugned, which has not been done in the present case.

5. However, Rule 12 gives discretion to Tribunal to accept a petition which is not accompanied by any or all documents referred in Rule-11. In the present case this court has not passed any order with regard to dispensation of certified copy of impugned order.

6. Petitioner has not taken any steps in providing certified copy. Even, he is not taking any steps in serving the contesting respondents, because more than two years has expired after filling of petition. Petitioners as well as counsel are very casual in their appearance in precutting the case, before this court. Mere filling the case before a court, it does not absolve petitioner from his duty to assist the court in getting opposite party served.

7. Since this court is correcting court so, I have gone the photocopy of impugned order and other relevant documents attached with the file.

8. It appears that, one Ali Mohammad filed a application under section 8 of Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act 2006 for restoration of landed property under khasra nos. 143, 132, 145, 160,268, 271, 272, 134, 145, 159, 260, 268, 271, 299, 144, 134, 145, 159, 160 situated in village Mandera Tehsil Samba belonging to Dil Mohammad, the real brother of applicant. This application was presented on 14-09-1983. In the application it was pleaded, that, property mentioned above of Dil Mohammad be deleted and same be restored to him. The custodian Evacuee Property by his order dt 12-10-1985, held that Dil Mohammad death has been proved, but applicant has failed to produced certificate of death of Dil Mohammad prior to 1947. So property cannot be deleted, but at the same time custodian allotted land referred above to the successor of applicant Ali Mohammad, namely Reham Ali in view of Government order no A-653-50 dated 6-5-1950 and Government Order No. Reh-371 dated 9-9-1971

9. Accordingly mutation of inheritance of rahim ali was attested by Tehsildar samba on 5.6.1996.

10. The matter was taken to Divisional Commissioner Jammu in a revision petition filed by contesting respondents and on 4-4-2009 Divisional Commissioner Jammu set aside the order. He categorically held that under section 8 and 14 of the Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act Custodian was not competent to allot the land to Reham Ali. He further held that no mutation of succession of allottee land can be attested. Mutation of succession can be attested with regard to only ownership land.

11. Court below accordingly set aside allotment order passed by custodian on 12.10.1985 and held that a separate reference shall be sent to custodian general for rectifying illegality.

12. Court below also set aside mutation attested by Tehsildar on 5.6.1996, relying on order of custodian

13. Legal representatives of Reham Ali, now have come up before this court in a revision for setting aside the order of Divisional Commissioner.

14. Under section 30-A of Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act. Minister Incharge now Special Tribunal has power to revise the order of custodian or custodian general, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to legality a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document