The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 30-A of the J&K Evacuee's Administration of Property Act, defining the powers of the Minister Incharge, now substituted by the Special Tribunal, to call for the record of proceedings and pass orders for legality or propriety.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner - Custodian General, Evacuee Property being a statutory authority appointed under Section 3-(A) of the J&K Evacuee's Administration of Property Act which has the administrative quasi-judicial powers defined under the said Act which inter-alia include the powers as an Appellate & Revisional Authority.

2. The present writ petition raises important legal questions of law and also questions of general importance pertaining to the cases under the Evacuees Property Act and the petitioner, through the medium of the present writ petition, has challenged an order dated 23.04.2008 passed by the learned J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, whereby the Tribunal while entertaining the revision petition against the order dated 10.04.2008 passed by the Custodian General, Evacuee under Section 30(1-b) of the J&K State Evacuees (Administration of Property Act) Samvat 2006, and while accepting the same, directed the Custodian General to issue fresh notice to the parties and pass a fresh order on merits after hearing them.

3. The following questions of law arise in the present petition:

A) 'Whether in presence of 30(1)(c) of the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act Samvat (2006), respondent No. 1 is legally competent and justified in firstly entertaining the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2 and while acceptance of the same by setting aside the order directing the petitioner to issue fresh notice to the parties, hear them and pass fresh orders on merits.

B) Whether the provision of J&K Special Tribunal Act, 1988 or Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act empower the respondent No. 1 to entertain revision petition against the orders of the petitioner passed under Section 30(1)(b) of the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act

C) Whether the minister Incharge of the Evacuee Property Department may at any time either on his own motion or an application made to him in that behalf call for the record of any proceeding in which any Custodian or Custodian General has passed an order under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as he think fit by exercising the power under Section 30(a) of the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act Samvat 2006.

D) Whether the minister Incharge has been substituted by J&K Special Tribunal under Section 3 of the J&K Special Tribunal Act 1988.'

4. This Court vide order dated 12.07.2022 has already set respondent Nos. 2 & 3 ex-parte as none had caused appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on next day.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that under Section 30 of the J&K State Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act Svt. 2006, any person, who is aggrieved by an order made under Section 8, Section 14 [Section 25, Section 29-A], may prefer an appeal to the High Court against the order of the Custodian General under Section 30(c) of the aforesaid Act. For facility of reference Section 30 of the aforesaid Act is reproduced as under:-

'30. Appeal, review and revision:

01) Any person aggrieved by an order made under Section 8, Section 14, [Section 25, Section 29-A] may prefer an appeal]-

(a) to the Custodian, where original order has been passed by a Deputy or an Assistant Custodian;

(b) to [the Custodian General], where the original or appellant order has been passed by the Custodian, an Additional custodian or an authorized Deputy Custodian;

(c) [to the High Court, against the order of Custodian General.

Provided that no appeal shall lie to High Court against concurrent finding of the Custodian and the Custodian General]...'

6. The further stand of the petitioner is that since the Custodian General has passed the order under Section 30 (1)(b) of the Act of 2006 against two orders passed by Deputy Custodian, Rajouri dated 09.06.1999 and 18.02.2005 by way of an Appellate Authority and, accordingly, as per Section