Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 78 (JK)

Champa Devi v. Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu

2010-02-19

A.K.Shan

body2010
1. Order dated 08.02.2008 passed by Custodian canceling the allotment of petitioner has been challenged before this Tribunal on the ground adopted in the revision petition, especially for violating the rule of natural justice. 2. In this case the learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed verbal arguments whereas the respondent's counsel has submitted written arguments. 3. The facts of the case are that double storey house located in Ward No: 9 Rajouri was allotted to the petitioner and one Gulshan Kumar against monthly rent of Rs.16/- and Rs. 30/- respectively. 4. The ground floor was allotted to the petitioner and 1st floor to Gulshan Kumar. On 20.12.2006 Gulshan Kumar filed an application before Deputy Custodian Rajouri seeking permission to repair the portion of his house. In the said application he pointed out that the portion of the house allotted to the petitioner is also required to be repaired. He thus sought the permission for repairing the house of the petitioner as well. 5. On 14.1.2007 Field Inspector submitted a report to Deputy Custodian Rajouri with reference to the application of Gulshan Kumar. In the report he disclosed that the house of the petitioner is in bad condition and petitioner is not residing in the said house, as such Gulshan Kumar be permitted to affect the repair of the house of the petitioner as well. The Deputy Custodian submitted the report to Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu mentioning there in that petitioner is putting up in a private house and has locked the house allotted to her which is in dilapidated condition and the house of the Gulshan Kumar requires repair so sanction in this regard be accorded. 6. The Custodian passed the impugned order dated 8.2.2008 accepting the recommendation of the Deputy Custodian Rajouri. He further observed that portion under the lease hold of petitioner has already been abandoned by her and the same is also in dilapidated condition. On this ground the allotment in favor of the petitioner was cancelled by the Custodian. It is this order which has been challenged before this Court. 7. The impugned order on its face is illegal because the Custodian has not summoned the petitioner and has passed the order at her back which is in gross violation of rule of natural justice. It is this order which has been challenged before this Court. 7. The impugned order on its face is illegal because the Custodian has not summoned the petitioner and has passed the order at her back which is in gross violation of rule of natural justice. Moreover the Custodian under Rule 14 of Evacuee Property Rule was duty bond to hear the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Proviso to Rule 14(3) supra provides that a reasonable notice shall be given to an allottee before an order for cancellation of allotment is made. 8. From the said rule it is further disclosed that Custodian can cancel the allotment and evict the allottee if he is satisfied about the existence of condition as laid down in sub-rule (3). 9. The Custodian has no where recorded his satisfaction about the existence of condition for canceling the allotment. The grounds for canceling the allotment of petitioner are flimsy. The house is in dilapidated condition it can be repaired by the department or the petitioner can also be directed to affect such repair but this ground cannot be made a basis to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. 10. In view of the above observation, the impugned order is set aside and case is remanded back to the Custodian to pass fresh order in accordance with the Rule supra after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Custodian on 8.4.2010. 11. Record of the court below along with copy of this order be sent to the court below and file of this Tribunal be consigned to record after due compilation.