JUDGMENT Madan Lal, Member (J) 1. Petitioner has preferred the present revision petition against the order dated 10.2.1999 passed by Deputy Custodian Poonch whereby Deputy Custodian without ascertaining the actual facts and ground realities of the case and without holding on spot enquiry and verification, illegally and arbitrarily regularized the land to the extent of 28 kanals 15 marlas in favour of the respondent, copy of the order enclosed as Annexure "A". The petitioner was not in the knowledge of the impugned order and came to know about the same recently when the respondent started claiming himself to be the owner of the land on the basis of impugned order, petitioner obtained a copy of the order and took legal advice for filing the present revision petition and prays for condoning the delay, if any occurred. Further stated that late father and uncle of the petitioner were owner of the land totally 28 kanals 15 marlas situated at Bandi Chechian tehsil Haveli comprising under Khasra No. 493, 491, 490, 489/1, 472/2, 443/1, 443, 472, 489 and afore stated land was mortgaged on 4.6.1990 in favour of the respondent No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 80,000/- as money was required by the petitioner's father for treatment of his wife. Photo copy of mortgage deed is enclosed with the petition. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner steps into the shoes of his father as such is competent to file the present petition herein. Petitioner had approached to the respondent No. 1 and expressed willingness to redeem the mortgage property and pay back the money borrowed by petitioner's father and pay the same to the respondent No. 1. But respondent No. 1 adopted delay tactics whereas petitioner is a Govt. servant and could not remain in touch with the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 took the undue benefit of petitioner's absence. Further stated that land in question is not a custodian land but it is a private land owned by the petitioner and his family and same is evident from the revenue record. The order impugned is a clear case of misuse of powers by the respondent No. 2. Further stated that land in question is not a custodian land but it is a private land owned by the petitioner and his family and same is evident from the revenue record. The order impugned is a clear case of misuse of powers by the respondent No. 2. Before passing the impugned order respondent was under obligation to give a notice to all the concerned persons but in the present case no notice was given to the petitioner and moreover no enquiry was conducted on spot and order impugned is a clear cut case of illegal exercise of powers by respondent No. 2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that impugned order requires to be set aside on the simple ground that the property regularized in favour of respondent No. 1 is a private land and Deputy Custodian, Poonch had no authority to allot the said property to respondent No. 1. Further argued that impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioner and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent had argued that revision petition preferred by petitioner deserves to be dismissed as the impugned order has been passed on 10.2.1999 and revision petition has been filed on 19th August, 2010 and there is a delay of more than 10 years. Whereas the petitioner was knowing about the proceedings of the case and had also moved an application for transfer of the case which was pending before the Deputy Custodian Poonch to any other Court of competent jurisdiction and an application for transfer of the case has been decided on 11 May, 1997 which is a part of the record produced by the department and petitioner can not claim ignorance of the proceedings and revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondent have referred a judgment reported in 2009 (1) JKJ 540 [HC]; Gurmukh Singh and others v. J&K Special Tribunal and others: "Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced hereunder for reference; Limitation prescribed for filing revision appeals and review against the orders of the authorities under the Act may be found in the Jammu and Kashmir Evacuees' (Administration of property Rule, Svt 2008 Rule 27 of these rules." 26. Appeal Review and revision. 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 petitioner or appeal shall be presented in person or through a legal practitioner or a recognized agent, when the appeal lie 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, so far applicable, apply to the hearing and disposal of the appeals under the Act. (5) Any petition for revision when made to the Custodian shall ordinarily be filed within 30 days of the order sought to be revised, while a petition for revision when made to the Custodian General shall be made within 60 days of such date. The petition shall be presented in the same manner as a 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 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." 5. Section 30-A of the Act, which was introduced subsequently in the statue by way of amendment vests additional powers of revision in the Minister Incharge. This section uses the same phraseology as has been employed by the Legislature while enacting section 30 of the Act in terms whereof power of revision against the orders of the Officers subordinate to the revisional authorities Vests in the Custodian and Custodian General. 6. This section uses the same phraseology as has been employed by the Legislature while enacting section 30 of the Act in terms whereof power of revision against the orders of the Officers subordinate to the revisional authorities Vests in the Custodian and Custodian General. 6. 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 that the Legislature, while enacting section 30-A had not intend to oust the application of the limitation period prescribed under the rules for motions of revisions before the Minister Incharge. 7. Same period of limitation as prescribed for moving a motion for revision before the Custodian general would, therefore by necessary implication, apply to the revisions, cognizance whereof, may be taken by the Minister Incharge of the Evacuee 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. 8. Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court had thus, in this background of the facts on the point, desired the Tribunal to opine as to whether or not any sufficient cause been made out by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions. 9. As against the findings of the Tribunal that the petitioners has not made out any case to demonstrate sufficient cause which had disabled them in filing revision petitions for a period of twenty two years, the petitioners have not projected any cause, much less sufficient cause even in these writ petitions, on the basis whereof, the finding of the Tribunal may be faulted. 10. I am in agreement with the view taken by the Special Tribunal that the petitioners had not made out any case much less projecting sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing their revision petitions, particularly, when their predecessor(s)-in-interest had not questioned the order of the Assistant Custodian Rajouri restoring the property in favour of Khairati Lal and had acquiesced to the order passed by the Custodian General dated January, 27, 1965 for about twenty two years. Khairati Lal has fundamental right to the properties left by his predecessor-in-interest who had been killed in the holocaust of 1947. He could not thus be deprived of his property. Khairati Lal has fundamental right to the properties left by his predecessor-in-interest who had been killed in the holocaust of 1947. He could not thus be deprived of his property. Allotment of his property, during his temporary and found absence from the State, to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, would not, in any case, vest any such right in the petitioners which can defeat Kairati Lal's ownership rights over his property. 11. Further argued that as per the provisions of section 30-A of Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006, Tribunal has power to call for the record of any proceedings in which any Custodian or Custodian General has passed an order under the provision of this Act for satisfying himself as legality or propriety of any such order and order assailed in present revision pertains to Deputy Custodian and the petitioner was required to maintain an appeal, review and revision before the Custodian or Custodian General and on the sole ground, revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel or the respondent has further argued that the land in question is an evacuee property and petitioner can not claim to be the owner of the property and order passed by Deputy Custodian Poonch deserves to be upheld and revision petition be dismissed. According to provisions of Section 30-A, Evacuee Property Act, revision is maintainable against order of any Custodian or Custodian General. 13. Record file has been received which reveals that respondent had moved an application for allotment of land under Khasra, No. 443, 472, 481, 489, 490 and 491 on 13.1.1993. Deputy Custodian EP Poonch had issued a proclamation stating therein that the total land is 81 kanals and out of it, 64 kanals of land is an evacuee land and respondent had applied for allotment for the land measuring 28 kanals 15 marlas which was in his occupation, whereas this evacuee land had been obtained from the petitioner and performa respondent subject to payment of an amount of Rs. 80,000/-. 80,000/-. And the petitioner as well as performa respondent had executed an agreement on 4.6.1990 when the proceedings were going on in the Court of Deputy Custodian, Poonch, petitioner as well as performa respondent had filed an application for transfer of the case to any other Court from the Court of Deputy Custodian Poonch and application filed by the petitioner herein came to be dismissed on 11.5.96 and petitioner as well as performa respondent have caused their appearance in the Court of Deputy Custodian Poonch. Ultimately the order impugned was passed on 10.2.1999. The plea taken by the petitioner in the revision petition that petitioner was not in the knowledge of the impugned order is absolutely incorrect. Petitioner as well as performa respondent have participated actively in the proceeding before the Court of Deputy. Custodian Poonch and question of not knowing about the impugned order does not arise at all. Revenue record enclosed with the file disclosed the names of owners Abdul Hamid, Mohd Farooq, Mohd Maroof, Mohd Amin Sons of Abdul Aziz holding one share, while Abdul Rehman, Ahmad Din, Abdul Habib, Mohd Shafi sons of Maida are holding four shares and the land in question does not belongs to Petitioner and performa respondent only, Abdul Hamid, Ahmad Din, Abdul Rehman, Abdul Habib and Mohd. Shafi are also shareholders of the land in question. 14. The petitioners and proforma respondents have received Rs. 80,000/- from the respondent in lieu of the Evacuee land Petitioner as well as performa respondent have no right to maintain the present revision petition as the land allotted to the respondent no; 1 is an evacuee property (Land). 15. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the present revision petition is time barred and accordingly it is dismissed. Before parting this file, it is open for the petitioner and performa respondent to identifying their land and take appropriate step for redressal of their grievance. File be consigned to record room and record of the lower Court be sent back forthwith along with copy of the order.