The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Custodian has the authority to manage and lease evacuee property in accordance with the Evacuee Property Act and rules thereunder, and the procedure for fixation of premium and rent in respect of vacant evacuee land as per Rule 13-C of the Act.

1. Petitioners have filed present revision petition against the order of Respondent no. 4, by virtue of which respondent no. 4 has leased out land measuring eight and half Marla under Kh No. 276 situated at Digiana, Jammu for a period of 40 years in favour of respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 for langer purpose.

2. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, order impugned is against facts and law. That petitioner no. 1 had purchased the land in question on bona fide belief in term of an agreement dt 10.5.2006.. However this aspect has not been considered by respondent no. 4. That this Hon'ble Court in his order dated 29.9.09 categorically held that respondent no. 4 shall pass fresh order after hearing the petitioners and after spot inspection. That respondent no. 4 never visited on spot. That parties were not called in any case, if respondent no. 4 had visited the spot. That respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 could not claim better title. That petitioners are displaced persons of 1947. That petitioner no. 2 also did not consider the facts that, petitioner no. 2 had already filed application for regularization of land.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, respondents herein preferred a petition on behalf of SRI GURU SINGH SABHA HARGOVIND SAHIB DIGIANA JAMMU, before Custodian on 19.5.2007, in which it has been stated that, evacuee land measuring seven marals under kh. No. 272 of Estate Digiana Jammu, had been used by them for Langer purpose of the Gurudwara. That out of this land four marlas of land was given to one Shamsher Singh at the time of developing of Colony, That after the death of said Shamsher Singh his son Amarjeet Singh has stated that he has no objection to the utilization of land in question for by Gurdwara. That gurdwara committee is ready to give rent and will not bye pass rules. Along with main petition, an ancillary application was also filled in which it has been averred that respondents /petitioners herein, without any right are trying to raise construction upon the land unauthorisedly.

4. Accordingly, it was prayed that land in question be regularized against premium and payment of rent.

5. On 19.5.2007 Custodian granted statusquo order and notices were issued to petitioners herein. Petitioner no. 1 herein, instead of approaching the Custodian filed a revision before special tribunal, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.9.2007.Thereafter Paramjit Singh petitioner herein, appeared before the Custodian and filed an application on behalf of Tajinder Kour petitioner no. 2 herein, for regularization of land in her favour.

6. Meanwhile land was retained by Custodian department under his key and seal. It further appears from the order impugned that petitioners, herein were asked to pay premium of the said land on the basis of the prevalent market rate but they declined. Respondents herein stated that they are ready to pay rate of land as Rs. 20.00 lakh per kanals as per communication of Tehsildar of area.

7. Accordingly, recommendation was made to Custodian General for leasing the land for Langer purpose for a period of 40 yrs. on 8.10.2007. Custodian General on 23.10.2007 re affixed the premium as Rs. 27.00 lacs, instead of Rs. 20.00 lacs and monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. Custodian General on 30.10.2007 sanctioned the leasing of land in favour of respondents for Langer purpose. It appears that as per patwari, land was falling in khasra no. 276 and not 272, so on 12. 11. 2007, custodian general issued a corrigendum that in his order dt.23.10 2007, it be read as 276 instead of 272.

8. This Order was challenged by petitioners herein before Special Tribunal, Jammu and this Tribunal on 29.9.2009 quashed the order and remanded the Case to Custodian to pass fresh order after hearing petitioners herein and after spot inspection. Relevant extract reads as under:-

9. Accordingly the impugned order is quashed and case is sent back to Custodian, Jammu to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner and after spot inspect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document