Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 350 (JK)

Ranjit Singh v. Custodian

2008-09-22

Vinod Gupta

body2008
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order No:892/94/EPTJ/08 dated 17.04.2008 passed by the respondent(Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu) whereby a order of resumption of possession of land has been passed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was running a brick kiln alongwith others at village Ghaink Tehsil Jammu and the original allottees namely S/Shri Lachman Singh S/o Inder Singh, Nankoo s/o Ballia and Anant Singh s/o Dharam Singh allowed the petitioner and others for excavation of soil by subletting the land allotted to them. The petitioner made an application for allotment of land on the ground that he is in possession of the said land. Naib-Tehsildar Circle No:2 Tehsil Jammu recommended for cancellation of the allotment of the said evacuee property of the above named persons (original allottees) for violating rules governing the allotment and recommended that the said land be regularized in favour of the petitioner. Tehsildar Jammu after agreeing with the report and recommendation of Naib-Tehsildar, had also recommended that the said land be regularized in favour of the applicant. It was found by the respondent that the petitioner Ranjeet Singh was in possession of land measuring 79 kanals 19 marlas comprising Khasra Nos:2575/2251 (2Kanals-2 Marlas), 2276/2251 (2 kanals), 2277/2251 (15 kanals 19 marlas), 2287/2250 (3 kanals 2 marlas) 2288/2258 (9 kanals 16 marlas), 2261 (6 marlas) 2262 (5 kanals 8 marlas) 2264 (12 kanals 16 marlas) 2266 (18 kanals 8 marlas) 2262 (9 kanals 8 marlas). The respondent (Custodian E.P.Jammu) vide order dated 31.3.2005 regularized the possession of land measuring 20 kanals 11 marlas in possession of the petitioner and was originally allotted to the petitioner on certain conditions. For the remaining land measuring 59 kanals the respondent (Custodian E.P. Jammu) has passed the following order on 31.03.2005:- So far as remaining land measuring 59 kanals comprising No. 2287/2250, 2288/2251, 2261, 2262, 2264, 2266 and 2267 is concerned though the said land is also in possession of applicant as is evident from the revenue records cannot be allotted to him unless premium of the said land is determined. As such the land in question is reserved till the premium is determined by the Collectorate, meanwhile the Deputy Commissioner Jammu who is also a District Collector may be requested separately to determine value of the land, so that premium amount is recovered from the deserving person including Shri Ranjeet Singh s/o Jodh Singh in the interest of the department which is paramount. 3. Now vide impugned letter No:892/94/EPTJ/08 dated 17.04.2008 the respondent (Custodian E.P.Jammu) directed the Field Inspector Rajveer Singh to resume possession of the land measuring 59 kanals described above. The petitioner has challenged this direction by way of this revision petition. 4. I have heard the Learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the written submission made on behalf of the respondent. I have also perused the record of the respondent. 5. The Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this revision petition is not maintainable because a communication has been challenged in this revision petition. It is further submitted that there is neither any jurisdictional error nor any violation of the procedure in issuance of this communication. On the otherhand, the Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent on the ground that the same is illegal, unlawful and against the principle of natural justice. I have considered all the aspects of the case. 6. From the order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the respondent on the application of the petitioner for allotment of land on the recommendation of Naib-Tehsildar and Tehsildar Jammu it is crystal clear that no order for resuming possession of the said land has been passed. It is admitted by the respondent in his order that the petitioner is in possession of 59 kanals of the said land and the said land cannot be allotted to the petitioner unless the premium of the said land is determined for which Deputy Commissioner Jammu (District Collector) was approached to determine the value of the land for assessment of premium, to be recovered from the petitioner. The land in question was reserved till the premium was determined. In such circumstances, the action of the respondent writing letter to the Field Inspector for resuming possession of the said land is illegal and arbitrary. This letter has been written without passing any specific order of resuming possession from the petitioner, thus the action of the respondent is not proper. 7. In such circumstances, the action of the respondent writing letter to the Field Inspector for resuming possession of the said land is illegal and arbitrary. This letter has been written without passing any specific order of resuming possession from the petitioner, thus the action of the respondent is not proper. 7. Although no order has been passed by the respondent for dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question but has taken action to dispossess the petitioner from the said land by sending the impugned communication to the Field Inspector. The scope of revision petition under Section 30-A of the J&K Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act, Samvat 2006 is wider and this Tribunal can satisfy itself in respect of illegality or proprietary of any action taken by the Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu. As stated above the respondent (Custodian E.P. Jammu) without hearing the petitioner and without passing any specific order for resumption of possession of the land in question from the petitioner, directed his Field Inspector to resume possession and such action is arbitrary, illegal and against the principle of natural justice. The record of the proceedings taken by respondent has been produced before this Tribunal and there is nothing to show that any specific order for resuming possession from the petitioner was passed after due process of law and hearing the effected person i.e. the petitioner. 8. The Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the order dated 31.03.2005 passed by the respondent clearly shows that the land in question was reserved which means that the department can resume possession. This contention of Learned counsel for the respondent is not well founded. The word reserved with the following words till the premium is dertermined clearly shows that the allotment of this land was deferred till premium is determined or fixed. Had the order for dispossession of petitioner from land in question been passed, the petitioner could have challenged the same before proper forum. This order does not show that any order for dispossession of petitioner or resumption of possession of the said land was passed. Thus the action of respondent for resumption of land is arbitrary and has taken without adopting due process of law. 9. This order does not show that any order for dispossession of petitioner or resumption of possession of the said land was passed. Thus the action of respondent for resumption of land is arbitrary and has taken without adopting due process of law. 9. For the fore-going reasons, I would hold that the action of the respondent (Custodian, E.P.Jammu) initiated vide communication No:892/94/EpTJ/08 dated 17.4.2008 to Field Inspector for resumption of possession of the land in question is illegal and improper and this revision is required to be accepted. Accordingly this revision petition is allowed and the action of the respondent (Custodian E.P.Jammu) is hereby set aside. 10. The record of the respondent be sent back forthwith and file of this Tribunal be consigned to record after due completion.