JUDGMENT : Ramesh Kumar Wattal, Member (Judicial) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, who have challenged the order dated 22-5-1993 passed by Custodian General Jammu on the grounds :- That the order impugned is contrary to the facts of the case and law on the point. 2. That the Learned Custodian General has failed to decide the issue of limitation as decided by the Hon'ble High Court. The observation of the Learned Custodian General that the learned Custodian has condoned the delay in filing application is quite in ignorance of the order passed by the Custodian and Custodian has rejected the application as time barred. Learned Custodian General therefore as it appears has passed the order impugned without looking into and reading the order passed by the Custodian Jammu and order is liable to be set aside. 3. That the findings of the Court below that the application was filed within time after obtaining knowledge is without any evidence and no such averments were made in the application nor an application for condonation of delay was filed by the father of the respondent. The impugned order based on such findings is illegal, hence the same is liable to be set aside. 4. That the findings that the land in dispute was not properly declared as evacuee is also incorrect and it is submitted that the property has been recorded as evacuee property is sufficient proof that the land in dispute been declared as evacuee. On the one hand that the Court below has observed that the property has not been declared a evacuee and on the other hand it has ordered that the land in dispute be deleted from the record. This clearly shows that the property was declared as evacuee property in accordance with the law. The order impugned is therefore liable to be set aside on this ground as well. The application was palpably time barred as has been rightly stated by the learned Custodian. 5. That the findings of the Court below that Chuda and his sons except Roshan Din died in the holocaust in this part of the Country is also incorrect. The Custodian General has not appreciated the evidence in right prospective. The Custodian has rightly returned the findings that Chuda and his sons went over Pakistan. In fact Roshan Din also went over Pakistan and came back without obtaining proper permission. The Custodian General has not appreciated the evidence in right prospective. The Custodian has rightly returned the findings that Chuda and his sons went over Pakistan. In fact Roshan Din also went over Pakistan and came back without obtaining proper permission. 6. That the order impugned is liable to be set aside on the grounds as well. 7. That the assuming though denying that Chuda and his sons except Roshan Din died in India yet it is submitted that they accepted the petitioners or their fathers as tenants by accepting the rent. The petitioners have placed the receipts of the rent on record before the court below and Court below as it appears without considering it has returned the findings that no evidence was lead. The findings is contrary to the facts as such is per record which is liable to be set aside. 8. The Court below has no power to order for restoration of possession in view of the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act. Admittedly the petitioners are in possession of the land. The question of the nature of the possession of the land can be decided by the authority under Agrarian Reforms Act and order is liable to be set aside. 9. That the Court below has decided the question that the petitioners are not the tenants of the respondent or his father though he has no jurisdiction to decide such a question as it is an authority appointed under the Agrarian Reforms Act. He has exercised his jurisdiction not vested in it by law hence order is liable to be quashed. 10. That the observation that the petitioners cannot challenge the restoration of the land is also illegal and the said point has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court. 11. The petitioner, therefore requested that the order impugned may kindly be set aside. 12. I have gone through the material on records as well as heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the written arguments placed on the file. 13. Perusal of the material on record reveals that Roshan Din father of the petitioner on 06-11-1969 applied to the Custodian that his father expired and he was survived by petitioner father who was surviving in 1954 and was entitled to restoration of land measuring 168 kanals situated at Mehmoodpur/Tehsil Bishnah. 14. 13. Perusal of the material on record reveals that Roshan Din father of the petitioner on 06-11-1969 applied to the Custodian that his father expired and he was survived by petitioner father who was surviving in 1954 and was entitled to restoration of land measuring 168 kanals situated at Mehmoodpur/Tehsil Bishnah. 14. It was also pleaded that land was in occupation of one Chura who expired in 1947 leaving behind Roshan Din as sole surviving legal heirs of the property. The Custodian vide his order dated 09-11-1976 did not find favour with the application of petitioner which was dismissed. 15. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before Custodian General and the Custodian General vide his order dated 20-12-1977 remanded the case making certain observations to Custodian for denovo enquiry and decision. 16. The respondent challenged the same and Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 02-02-1989 remanded the case to Custodian General directing that all effected persons should be given an opportunity of being heard and thereafter the order under law be passed. 17. The Custodian General in pursuance of the order of the Honorable High Court dated 2-2-1989 after giving all the interested parties reasonable opportunity of being heard set aside the order of custodian dated 9-11-1976, ordered deletion of the property involved in the proceedings belonging to chuda grandfather of the respondent and ordered restoration of possession to the respondent however keeping in view the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act vide his order dated 2-5-1993, the ordered impugned before this court. 18. It be mentioned that this court vide order dated 25-1-1995 on the revision petition filed by the petitioner had observed that the remedy before the respondent was to file 2nd appeal before the Honorable High Court and not the revision against this order held the revision not maintainable and dismissed the same. The respondent approached the Hon'ble High Court where Single Judge vide his order dated 21-10-1999 ordered that revision under Section 30-A against the order of custodian General was maintainable notwithstanding the fact that remedy of appeal was available to the aggrieved party and set aside the order of the tribunal. 19. The respondent approached the Hon'ble High Court where Single Judge vide his order dated 21-10-1999 ordered that revision under Section 30-A against the order of custodian General was maintainable notwithstanding the fact that remedy of appeal was available to the aggrieved party and set aside the order of the tribunal. 19. This order was challenged in LPA before the Honorable High Court which vide order dated 9-5-2007 dismissed the LPA filed by the respondent upholding the order of Single Judge of the Honorable High Court and also directed the case to be heard by Tribunal and decide the revision in accordance with law that is how the case in revision filed by the petitioners against the order of custodian General has come up before this court for disposal under law. 20. So far as the grounds taken in the revision petition are concerned, the petitioner has contended that the Custodian had rejected the application on the grounds of limitation and this order should not have been set aside by condoning the limitation and Custodian General has wrongly held that the application was not barred by limitation. As regard this grounds though it has been stated by the Custodian that the application for restoration of the land is time barred but this aspect has been fully gone into by Custodian General who has held that the application was entertained duly by the Custodian for deletion of the property and the delay could be stated have been condoned. 21. Even, otherwise, it has also been held by the Custodian General that the applicant respondent herein had pleaded before the Custodian that once he came to know that the property was declared as Evacuee, he took steps to obtain the copy of the order declared the property as Evacuee Property u/s 6 which could not be obtained and respondent had individually given the notice of surrender of possession who were not knowing that the property is recorded as Evacuee Property and since no notification u/s 6 of EPP Act was available on record so the question of limitation did not arise. 22. On these grounds, the limitation was rightly condoned by the Custodian General and consequently no illegality is found in the order impugned on this ground. 23. 22. On these grounds, the limitation was rightly condoned by the Custodian General and consequently no illegality is found in the order impugned on this ground. 23. The petitioner has also urged earlier that the property was declared as Evacuee Property and same was in possession of the petitioner it is wrong to say that Chura had been killed in this side of the part of J&K who had gone to Pakistan along with petitioner himself and petitioner came back without proper permission who should not have been restored the property left by his father. 24. In this respect, evidence has been adduced before the court below wherein it has been mentioned that the family members of Chura excepting Roshan Din were killed in holocaust and the witness have also stated that they had seen the dead body of the deceased Chura who had died due to firing at Miran Sahib and the witnesses Parmanand, Sarban Dass and Banka Ram had given their statement before the court below that Chura, Karim, Qadir, Shafi had died in Miran Sahib and only Roshan Din was left The Custodian General has addressed to every aspects of the grounds urged by the petitioner that this statement was wrong and after scrutiny the statement of the witnesses has been found to be true to the effect that it was established that Chura along with others excepting Roshan Din was killed in 1947 riots and the grounds urged by the petitioner that application u/s 14 should have been filed does not arise at all. 25. It is further held by the court below that mutation of inheritance u/s 159 had been attested by Assistant Collector 2nd class in favour of Roshan Din on 10-05-1969 at Village Mehmoodpur after proper verification in presence of witnesses. 26. That thereafter after the death of Roshan Din, the Mutation No. 179, was attested in favour of surviving son of the deceased in presence of the witnesses of the locality. 26. That thereafter after the death of Roshan Din, the Mutation No. 179, was attested in favour of surviving son of the deceased in presence of the witnesses of the locality. The petitioner had challenged the mutation before the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner and the same were upheld and all the events in this regard established that the mutation had been correctly attested in favour of Roshan Din and not only this but he had also executed a gift deed in favour of his son with respect to the part of the land which have not been challenged and have been treated as correct documents. On this ground, it cannot be stated that Chura went to Pakistan and died there and the respondent were not entitled to conferment of rights of inheritance with respect to the Estate of the deceased Chura. 27. Another contention has been raised by stating that even if the land was not Evacuee Property but the authorities below have wrongly restored the property to the respondent because petitioner were in possession of the land as protected tenants who were paying rent and that they were entitled to rights under Agrarian Reforms Act which was having overriding effect over EPP Act or any other law which were in operation at the relevant time. 28. So far as the order passed is concerned thorough enquiry has been held in this regard and the court below has observed that the petitioner has failed to prove that they were paying any share of the produce to the respondent. The effect of tenancy could not be established nor there was any allotment of the petitioner who were in occupation of the land illegally and unauthorisedly i.e. why the same was ordered to be deleted from being an evacuee property and restored to the respondents. Merely setting up plea of tenancy before the custodian does not oust his jurisdiction who is within his powers and jurisdiction to decide whether the plea urged has any basis and only thereafter the case can be transferred or taken up by Agrarian authorities To see as to whether the property is evacuee property or not and in case the same is not then the same should be dc notified and possession restored is within the domain of custodian General and with none else. No fault is therefore found with regard to the findings of the court below and the contention has been rightly rejected. The petitioners have been found to be in unauthorized possession of the land i.e. the land was restored to the respondent and perusal of the file also shows that almost all the petitioners have as per their statement recorded before the court admitted that the possession of the land was rightly restored to the respondent who had shown their willingness not to press the revision petition. The orders dated 22-05-1993, 01-05-2008, 23-01-2008 and 11-06-2011 are self explanatory. The Petitioner Nos. 4, 11, 10, 8, 13, 7, 15, 2, 7, have admitted this position as per order dated 23-01-2008 and 31-05-2011. The petitioner Nos. 11 and 12 have deleted on 31-05-2011 and the contesting petitioner Charan Dass also expired on 11-06-2011 on whose behalf application for being legal heirs on record was filed. During the proceedings, the Petitioner Nos. 4,6, 7,8,10,13 and 15 have also died whose legal heirs have not been brought on record and the death of these persons have taken place before 2008. 29. Only out of the petitioners left in the case it is the Petitioner No. 1 who has claimed the possession of 3 kanals out of the land in question and the possession of the remaining land stands given to the respondent. The petitioner is neither allottee not has been able to show any right or title with respect to the possession and occupation of the land and whose possession is unauthorized having no right or any concern shown with the land in dispute as occupier in any legal capacity. 30. No substantial question of law or public importance is, therefore, arises in the case, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. 31. The record be returned to the concerned quarter along with copy of this order. 32. File be consigned to records after due completion.