The main legal point established is that the Custodian has the power to cancel allotments and that the court has the authority to review and revise orders passed by subordinate officers.

1. This Revision has been directed against the order dated 18-05-2009, passed by the respondent no.1, by virtue of which allotment of evacuee land situated at Mankote Mendhar made in favour of one Surjeet Kumar and also allotment of land made by deputy custodian poonch in favour petitioner on 30.12.2002, has been cancelled.

2. Perusal of memo of revision petition, it appears that Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the order has been passed in mechanical manner so bad in the eyes of law. That the order is against the facts and law. That court below has exercised jurisdiction which was not vested to him as he has suo motto reviewed the allotment order of respondent no.1 dated 30-12-02 and thereby cancelled the allotment.

3. Petitioner as well as his counsel is not appearing since long, so I have heard counsel for respondents and perused the record.

4. It appears from the record that, petitioners herein filed an application before Custodian E.P. Jammu for restraining Performa respondents herein, from interfering and encroaching upon the evacuee land measuring 19K-13M under Khasra no. 517 and 517min situated at Mankote Tehsil mendher.

5. In the application it has been stated that land measuring 9 Kanal under kh. 517min was allotted to applicant and rest of the land is in their possession. That non applicants wants to grab the land. That matter was brought to the knowledge of Tehsildar (Assistant Custodian) Mendhar to visit on spot and to restrain the non applicants from encroaching the land. That no action was taken by (Assistant Custodian).

6. Performa respondents herein appeared and filed objections, it has been stated in the objection that total land measuring 19K-13 M under kh. 517 was allotted to one Surjeet Kumar and other in year 1947. Out of this land, 9Kanals of land was allotted to applicants after cancelling the allotment made in favour of Surjeet Kumar by Deputy Custodian Poonch. That land measuring 10K-13 M is in their possession and they have already made a representation for allotment to the Custodian General. That applicants are enjoying their possession on yearly rent of Rs 50/- per kanal and now they want to grab land measuring 10K-13 M which is in their possession.

7. It further appears from the record and order impugned that, during the pendency of litigation before court below non applicants namely Mohammad Bashir and other filed an application for allotment of land measuring 10K under kh, no. 517 min before Custodian General, at Jammu, who endorsed the application to Custodian for report. Custodian asked for report from Assistant Custodian, who reported that land measuring 10K 13 Marlas out of Kh. No. 517 is under the occupation of Mohammad Bashir and Mohammad Fazal but allotment is on the name of Surjeet Kumar. He also reported that land measuring 9K is under occupation of Mohammad Amin and Mohammad Sharief, Petitioner herein and same has been allotted to them against rent of Rs 50/- per month.

8. Court below after hearing the matter passed the following directions:-

"I have gone through the record of the case, besides have weighed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties which establishes that the evacuee property land in question has really been alienated by the allottee Shri Surjit Kumar in favour of both the parties applicants as well as non-applicants with some consideration which is against the cannons of law governing the said property. Therefore, his allotment in respect of the said land is hereby cancelled forthwith. So far as petition for restraining the non-applicants preferred by the petitioners is concerned, they have falsely stated that they are in possession of the land measuring 10 kanals 13 marlas alongwith allotted, as communicated by the Assistant Custodian concerned. Therefore, the instant petition filled by the petitioner cannot be considered. However, both the parties in the instant case, has secured the said landed property fraudulently and the appl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document