Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 68 (JK)

Roshan Lal v. Ved Parkash

2010-02-17

A.K.Shan

body2010
1. Order dated 27.2.2009 passed by Custodian General dismissing by common order two revision petitions filed before him by the petitioner and respondent No:1 against the order of Custodian Jammu dated 3.2.2007, has been assailed in this revision petition with the prayer to set aside the same. Further prayer has been made to rectify/modify the order of Custodian Jammu. 2. The occasion to hear the learned counsel for the parties without record was taken when it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Custodian General has dismissed the two revision petitions preferred before him has abated on the ground that respondent Ved Parkash as per the report of process server has expired whereas the fact is that he is alive. The report of Naib-Tehsildar and the concerned SHO as well as the copy of voter list, indicating that Ved Parkash is still alive has been annexed with the petition. 3. Even today Mr. Romeshwar, advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Ved Parkash and submitted in the open court that Ved Parkash is alive. The fact of respondent Ved Parkash being alive has not been disputed by the opposite party. 4. Thus there is no dispute about Ved Parkash being alive. Rather there is ample and sufficient evidence to prove that Ved Parkash is still alive. There is another authentic proof before this court to prove that Ved Parkash is still alive and that is the report of process server of Tehsil Haveli according to which when he went to serve notice of this Tribunal upon Ved Parkash he saw him alive who on account of his illness failed to put signature on the notice. If there is overwhelming evidence that Ved Parkash is still alive one fail to understand as to how a false report was made by process server endorsed by Deputy Custodian Poonch to the Custodian General who had issued the notice for service of Ved Parkash. 5. In this background the Custodian General shall initiate an enquiry and take appropriate action against the person responsible for making false report. Once it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that Ved Parkash is alive, the impugned order is not sustainable dismissing the revision petition as abated on the ground that after the death of Ved Parkash no one filed any application for bringing on record his LRs. Once it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that Ved Parkash is alive, the impugned order is not sustainable dismissing the revision petition as abated on the ground that after the death of Ved Parkash no one filed any application for bringing on record his LRs. The Custodian General shall restore the revision petitions and after hearing the parties pass order in accordance to the law. The petitioner and respondent No: 1 who are appearing before this Tribunal are directed to appear before Court below on 4.3.2010. 6. File of this Tribunal be consigned to record after due compilation.