Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 604 (JK)

Alam Din v. Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu

2013-10-08

Madan Lal

body2013
ORDER 1. Petitioners have preferred the instant revision petition against the order no. 141 of 2012 dated Ist of June, 2012 on the ground that the petitioners are permanent residents of J&K State and putting up in Khasra No. 389 situated at village Sikandarpur tehsil and District Jammu and have constructed Pacca Khullas for the last more than three years. Respondent No. 2 had put to an open auction of the land measuring 10 kanals and 10 marlas bearing khasra No. 389 on 9.12.2010 and respondent no. 2 got the said land auctioned through Assistant Commissioner (Nazool) and Deputy Custodian Jammu which is evident from the auction proceedings. Land in question was 10 kanals 10 marlas only and the auction proceedings has taken place in the Office chamber only to give undue benefit to respondent no. 3 who do not belong to agriculture class. Whereas the land measuring 3 kanals 05 marlas have been leased out for 99 years to M/S Trishul Klin Pvt. Ltd. And o1 kanals was in possession of Kamal Singh (owner) and land measuring 04 kanals 05 marlas is out of reach of Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu. Further stated that no wide publicity has been given to the auction notices and the auction notices has also been pasted at the land in question. If it would have been done, the petitioners have also participated in the open auction and whole of the proceedings have been taken at the back of the petitioners without any notice and submitted that everything has been done in the closed door which is against the provisions of law. Respondent no. 1 and 2 have filed detailed written version and para no. 2 of the same is reproduced hereunder: "That the revision petition filed by the petitioners also deserves an outright dismissal because the petitioner in the revision petition have tries to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal by making different statements which are contradictory to the documents/annexures enclosed by the petitioners with the revision petition which thus clearly amounts to resorting to falsehood in the judicial proceedings and which is turn amounts to interference in the course of ad ministration of justice as per the settled legal positions petitioners are liable to proceeded against for which the answering respondents according pray for besides seeking dismissal of the revision petition on this ground alone. 2. 2. In the above context, it is submitted that the whole thrust of the petitioners in the revision petition is that the auction notice has allegedly not been given vide publicity and the petitioners could not got knowledge and could not participate in the auction proceedings. Whereas the petitioner in annexure "P" at page 13 of the paper book of revision petition while making representation to Hon'ble Minister for revenue, State under para 3 of the said representation has given an all together different version which is reproduced for ready reference as under: That the concerned Custodian department had issued an auction notice issued public at large. At the time applicants are uneducated and illiterate persons could not participate in the process and neither understand the notice and as per the earlier notification the premium of the said land is fixed Rs. 8,50,000/- now the applicants are ready to give the premium of the same land is Rs. 9,00,000 to the concerned Evacuee Property Department. From the perusal of aforementioned para of the representation as well as the contention/averments made in the various paragraphs of the revision petition makes it crystal clear that the petitioners in the present revision petition have resorted to false hood in the judicial proceedings". 3. I have heard and perused the record . Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that respondents had adopted a unique mode and the proceedings and petitioners have been deprived from taking the participation in auction proceedings and impugned order deserves to be set aside . The impugned order has been passed in order to give benefit to respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent have draw the attention of this Tribunal towards the Annexure 7 and para 3 of the Annexure P-7. Representation on behalf of Alam Din, Abdul Rashid, Shah Wali and Mohd Baiko given to Hon'ble Minister of State Revenue and relevant para of representation is reproduced hereunder: "That the concerned Custodian department had issued an auction notice issued to public at large. At the time the applicants are uneducated and illiterate persons could not participated in the process and neither understand the notice and as per the earlier notification the premium of the said land is fixed Rs., 8,50,000/- now the applicants already to given the premium of the same land is Rs. 90,000/- to the concerned Evacuees Property Department." 4. At the time the applicants are uneducated and illiterate persons could not participated in the process and neither understand the notice and as per the earlier notification the premium of the said land is fixed Rs., 8,50,000/- now the applicants already to given the premium of the same land is Rs. 90,000/- to the concerned Evacuees Property Department." 4. It is nowhere stated that in the revision petition that the respondent no. 1 and 2 are not competent persons to issue the auction notice regarding the matter and have passed the impugned order without any authority. Purpose of revision is correct the illegalities committed by the Court below and in the present petition, petitioners have failed to make out any error of law committed by the respondents. Petitioners were well versed with the auction proceedings and can not assail the act of the respondent in present revision petition unless and until pin-point any omission or commission of law or respondents have failed to apply the provision of law. Impugned order could be set aside if the respondent have failed to discharge their duties not warranted by the law. In the considered opinion of the Tribunal respondents have neither exceeded the powers nor failed to exercise their power, While conducting of auction proceedings of land in question . Petitioner has already filed an affidavit to the department for vacating the land within four months. Photo copy of the affidavit has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent. When the petitioner could not succeeded, have chosen the mode of filing instant petitioners. 5. In the considered opinion, revision petitions is not maintainable, It is dismissed. File be consigned to records after due compilation and record file of the below Court be sent back forthwith along with copy of the order.