1. No one is coming forward on behalf of petitioner's sides to prosecute the revision petition. 2. This revision petition has been filed on 31-03-2010, against the order dated 4-4-09. So this revision petition has been filed after about one year of passing impugned order. No application for condonation of delay has been filed. No certified copy of impugned order has been annexed and only photocopy has been annexed that too without any proper stamps. 3. Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules reads as under:- Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules Every memorandum of petition shall be in triplicate and shall be accompanied by two copies (at least one of which shall be certified copy) of the order appealed against. 4. A plain reading of Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules, it is evident that, every petition should be accompanied with at least one certified copy of order impugned, which has not been done in the present case. 5. However, Rule 12 gives discretion to Tribunal to accept a petition which is not accompanied by any or all documents referred in Rule-11. In the present case this court has not passed any order with regard to dispensation of certified copy of impugned order. 6. Petitioner has not taken any steps in providing certified copy. Even, he is not taking any steps in serving the contesting respondents, because more than two years has expired after filling of petition. Petitioners as well as counsel are very casual in their appearance in precutting the case, before this court. Mere filling the case before a court, it does not absolve petitioner from his duty to assist the court in getting opposite party served. 7. Since this court is correcting court so, I have gone the photocopy of impugned order and other relevant documents attached with the file. 8. It appears that, one Ali Mohammad filed a application under section 8 of Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act 2006 for restoration of landed property under khasra nos. 143, 132, 145, 160,268, 271, 272, 134, 145, 159, 260, 268, 271, 299, 144, 134, 145, 159, 160 situated in village Mandera Tehsil Samba belonging to Dil Mohammad, the real brother of applicant. This application was presented on 14-09-1983. In the application it was pleaded, that, property mentioned above of Dil Mohammad be deleted and same be restored to him. 143, 132, 145, 160,268, 271, 272, 134, 145, 159, 260, 268, 271, 299, 144, 134, 145, 159, 160 situated in village Mandera Tehsil Samba belonging to Dil Mohammad, the real brother of applicant. This application was presented on 14-09-1983. In the application it was pleaded, that, property mentioned above of Dil Mohammad be deleted and same be restored to him. The custodian Evacuee Property by his order dt 12-10-1985, held that Dil Mohammad death has been proved, but applicant has failed to produced certificate of death of Dil Mohammad prior to 1947. So property cannot be deleted, but at the same time custodian allotted land referred above to the successor of applicant Ali Mohammad, namely Reham Ali in view of Government order no A-653-50 dated 6-5-1950 and Government Order No. Reh-371 dated 9-9-1971 9. Accordingly mutation of inheritance of rahim ali was attested by Tehsildar samba on 5.6.1996. 10. The matter was taken to Divisional Commissioner Jammu in a revision petition filed by contesting respondents and on 4-4-2009 Divisional Commissioner Jammu set aside the order. He categorically held that under section 8 and 14 of the Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act Custodian was not competent to allot the land to Reham Ali. He further held that no mutation of succession of allottee land can be attested. Mutation of succession can be attested with regard to only ownership land. 11. Court below accordingly set aside allotment order passed by custodian on 12.10.1985 and held that a separate reference shall be sent to custodian general for rectifying illegality. 12. Court below also set aside mutation attested by Tehsildar on 5.6.1996, relying on order of custodian 13. Legal representatives of Reham Ali, now have come up before this court in a revision for setting aside the order of Divisional Commissioner. 14. Under section 30-A of Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act. Minister Incharge now Special Tribunal has power to revise the order of custodian or custodian general, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to legality and propriety of any such order made under this Act. 15. A conjoint reading of section 8 and 14 of Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act., it is apparent that the Custodian has three options while dealing with the Custodian Property, whenever an application under section 8 of act is filled, which are as under:- 1. 15. A conjoint reading of section 8 and 14 of Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act., it is apparent that the Custodian has three options while dealing with the Custodian Property, whenever an application under section 8 of act is filled, which are as under:- 1. Allow the applicant and delete the property from the register of evacuee property; 2. Restore the property in favour of the applicant or reject the application; 3. Or refer the matter to civil court for determination of the titled of the applicant 16. So, the Custodian of Evacuees Property has no power to allot the property to a person independently. 17. Further present revision is time barred, and no sufficient cause has been shown. IN 2009(1) JKJ540[HC] in case title Gurmukh Singh & Ors. Versus J&K Spl. Tribunal & Ors. Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Rules, Svt. 2008 Rule 27 -- Appeal -- Limitation -- Sufficient cause -- Petitioners had not made out any case much less projecting sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing their revision petitions, particularly, when their predecessors -- in-interest has not questioned the order of the Assistant Custodian, Rajouri restoring the property in favour of KL, and had acquiesced to the order passed by the Custodian General dated January 27, 1965 for about twenty two years-Writ petition dismissed. [Para 24, 30 & 31] 22. Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal has dismissed petitioners' revision petitions as barred by time as it had not found any justification for the delay in filing the revision petitions after about twenty two years, besides hold that the petitioners had no locus standi to question the order of restoration made in favour of Khairati Lal respondent. 23. I will now proceed to examine the submissions of learned counsel for the parties to see as to whether the Tribunal has committed any error in dismissing petitioners' revision petitions as barred by time and whether the petitioners had no locus standi to question the restoration of property in favour of Khairati Lal respondent. 24. Limitation prescribed for filing revisions, appeal and review against the orders of the authorities under the Act may be found in the Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Rules, Svt. 2008 Rule 27 of these Rules prescribes the period for filing appeals, reviews and revisions. 24. Limitation prescribed for filing revisions, appeal and review against the orders of the authorities under the Act may be found in the Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Rules, Svt. 2008 Rule 27 of these Rules prescribes the period for filing appeals, reviews and revisions. It reads thus:- "27 Appeal, review and revision (1) All appeals under the Act shall, when they lie to the Custodian, be filed within thirty days of the date of the order appealed against and when they lie to the Custodian General or the High Court, within sixty days of such date. (2) The petition or appeal shall be presented in person or through a legal practitioner or a recognized agent, when the appeal lies to the Custodian General the petition of appeal may be sent by registered post. (3) Every petition shall state sufficiently the grounds on which order appealed from is attacked and shall be accompanied by a certified copy of such order unless the appellate authority dispenses with such copy. (4) Except as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or in these rules, the procedure laid down in order XLI of Civil Procedure Code shall, so far as applicable, apply to the hearing and the disposal of appeals under the Act. (5) Any petition for revision when made to the Custodian shall ordinarily be filed within thirty days of the order sought to be revised, while a petition for revision when made to the Custodian General shall ordinarily be made within sixty days of such date. The petition shall be presented in the same manner as petition of appeal when it is made to the Custodian but it may be sent by registered post when made to the Custodian General. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order sought to be revised and when made to the Custodian General, by also a certified copy of the original order unless the appellate authority dispenses with the production of any such copy. (6) An application for review of any order may be made within thirty days of the date of such order shall be presented either in person or through a legal practitioner or a recognized agent. (6) An application for review of any order may be made within thirty days of the date of such order shall be presented either in person or through a legal practitioner or a recognized agent. (7) The provisions of sections 4,5, and 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act, 1995, shall so far as they are applicable, apply in computing the period of limitation provided in this rule. (8) A notice of any appeal, revision or review may be given in addition to the persons concerned, to any other person who, in the opinion of the authority hearing the appeal, the revision or the review, may be interested in the same. (9) Any authority hearing any appeal or revision may admit additional evidence before its final disposal or may remand the case of admission of additional evidence and report or for a fresh decision, as such authority may deem fit." 25. Perusal of above quoted rule demonstrates the intention of the rule making authorities to prescribe period of limitation for filing appeals, review and for moving motion of revisions against the orders of the authorities under the Act. 26. Section 30-A of the Act, which was introduced subsequently in the statute by way of amendment vests additional powers of revision in the Minister Incharge. This section uses the same phraseology as had been employed by the Legislature while enacting section 30 of the Act in terms whereof power of revision against the orders of officers subordinate to the revisional authority vests in the Custodian and the Custodian General. 27. Although Section 30-A does not prescribe any period of limitation for moving motion for revision before the Minister Incharge, yet going by the intention of the rule making authority, it is apparent the Legislature, while enacting section 30-A had not intended to oust the application of the limitation period prescribed under the rules of motions of revisions before the Minister Incharge. 28. Same period of limitation as prescribed for moving a motion for revision before the Custodian General, who, would, therefore, by necessary implication, apply to the revisions, cognizance whereof, may be taken by the Minister Incharge of the Evacuee's Property Department under section 30-A of the Act and now by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal which has been vested with the powers which the Minister Incharge would exercise under Section 30-A of the Act. 29. 29. Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court had thus, in this background of the facts and law on the point, desired the Tribunal to opine as to whether or not any sufficient cause had been made out by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions. 18. So, this court has to adjudicate upon sufficient cause in preferring revision. I don't find any facts narrated by petitioners with regard to condoning delay in filling revision. Even no application for condoning delay in filling revision has been filled. 19. In view of, what has been discussed above. this revision petition is dismissed. 20. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion