JUDGMENT : 1. The brief facts of the case are that by virtue of order dated 03.09.2011 land measuring 46 kanals and 7 marlas covered by survey Nos. 595, 291, 593, 292, 205, 615, 620, 437, 592 and 594 belonging to one Ghulam Hussain (Evacuee) situated at Watamagam Tehsil Beerwa was transferred in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition that he will render half yearly accounts of income and expenditure to the Tehsildar/Asstt. Custodian Beerwah and in case any damage is caused to the property in question he shall be liable to penal action as well as action under the provisions of the J&K State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006. The order was also issued without prejudice to possession of protected tenants of the land. Further submitted that after passing of the order dated 03.09.2011 the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondents that out of the land measuring 46 kanals and 7 marlas land measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas covered by survey No. 205 and land measuring 10 marlas covered by survey No. 292 is in possession of certain unauthorized occupants which were evicted from the land measuring 5 kanals and 5 marlas on the application of the petitioner and possession was given to the petitioner on 23.4.2012 against a proper receipt and after taking over of the possession of the land an application was filed by respondent No. 4 before Dy. Custodian (Authorized) Evacuee Property Kashmir on 4.09.2012 alleging therein that the petitioner has illegally felled down poplar and Brun trees from the Evacuee Property land covered by survey No. 205. The said application seems to have been endorsed by Dy. Custodian to the Field Inspector and Field Assistant for report, who at the back of the petitioner submitted some report stating therein that the petition has cut poplar and Brun trees from the Evacuee Property willfully thereby caused damage to the property in question which is a cognizable offence and on receipt of the said report, the Dy. Custodian vide order dated 12.09.2012 cancelled allotment of the petitioner reserving the right to the department to proceed ahead under section 18 of the J&K State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006. Custodian vide order dated 12.09.2012 cancelled allotment of the petitioner reserving the right to the department to proceed ahead under section 18 of the J&K State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2012 filed a revision petition before this Tribunal who vide order dated 18.06.2014 accepted the same and set aside the order dated 12.09.2012 with a direction to the custodian Kashmir for rehearing the application filed by respondent No. 4 and to pass a proper and judicial order on the merits of the case under relevant provisions of the Act and after passing of the said order dated 18.06.2014 the petitioner caused his appearance before Custodian Kashmir on 26.06.2014 where he was told that the file has not been received back from the J&K Special Tribunal and after that he repeatedly approached the Custodian Kashmir for deciding the matter but every time he was told that the file has not been received back from the J&K Special Tribunal. In the month of September, 2014 the house of the petitioner also come under floods, therefore, he too left his house and took shelter at HMT Sharief Abad and during and after the floods of 2014 no proceedings were held by the custodian and in the meantime, the petitioner and his wife decided to go to Pakistan to meet their relatives over there and on 16.12.2014 they crossed the Waga Border and stayed in Pakistan upto 10.04.2015 and thereafter returned to Srinagar and during this period at the back of the petitioner the custodian Kashmir vide order dated 31.1.2015 & 20.03.2015 has heard the matter, remanded to him by J&K Special Tribunal vide order dated 18.06.2014. The petitioner is aggrieved of the orders dated 31.1.2015 & 20.03.2015 challenges the same on the following grounds:- (i) That in terms of the order dated 18.06.2014 passed by this Tribunal, the Custodian Kashmir had to hear the application filed by respondent No. 4 as well as application presented by some local persons and pass proper and judicial order on merits and the relevant provisions of the Act and under the said order the Custodian Kashmir was also required to examined the record and afford an opportunity of being heard to the parties. The impugned orders dated 31.1.2015 and 20.3.2015 have been passed by the Custodian Kashmir without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as such both the orders are liable to be set aside. (ii) The petitioner had gone to Pakistan in the month of December, 2014 and returned back in the month of April, 2015 and it was not, therefore, possible for him to cause his appearance before the Custodian Kashmir on 31.12.2014 and at the back of the petitioner had passed the orders dated 31.1.2015 & 20.03.2015 in violation of the provisions of the Act of 2006 and the rules, therefore, the orders are liable to be set aside. (iii) That in terms of the rule 18 of the Evacuee Property Rules, service or publication of any notice, summons or order has to be effected in one or more of the modes stipulated in Rule 18 itself. But the perusal of the impugned orders dated 31.1.2015 & 20.03.2015 clearly indicates that the impugned orders have been passed without serving notice on the petitioner provided by Rule 18 EP Rules. Since the impugned orders have been passed in violation of Rule 18, as such, are liable to be set aside. (iv) That Rule 14 of the Evacuee Rules, also provide that before an order for cancellation of allotment is made by Custodian, he should give a reasonable notice to the allottee, means that the allottee should have sufficient knowledge of the date fixed in the case and he should be in a position to cause his appearance before the court. But in the instant case, the petitioner had no notice of the date fixed in the case by the Custodian Kashmir. Besides that when the petitioner was outside the station/country it was not possible to him to know the date fixed in the case to appear before the Custodian Kashmir. The impugned orders are, therefore, violative of Rule 14 of Evacuee Properties, and are liable to be set aside. (v) That the custodian Kashmir has also passed the order in favour of the persons who are in possession of the land in violation of Rule 13-C of the Evacuee Property Rules and on that ground are illegal, non-est, liable to be set aside. (v) That the custodian Kashmir has also passed the order in favour of the persons who are in possession of the land in violation of Rule 13-C of the Evacuee Property Rules and on that ground are illegal, non-est, liable to be set aside. (vi) That after passing of the order dated 5.09.2011, the petitioner had been given possession of land measuring 5 kanals and 5 marlas by the respondents after evicting unauthorized occupants thereof and some of the evictees are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the said land which constrained him to file a suit for permanent injunction against them in the court of Munsiff Magam who passed the judgment on 23.05.2012 and by virtue the said judgment the respondents were permanently restrained from causing any interference with the possession of the petitioner's land covered by survey No. 205 situated at Village Watamagam Tehsil Beerwah District Budgam. (vii) That the Custodian Kashmir in terms of the impugned orders dated 31.1.2015 and 20.3.2015 has upheld the order dated 18.09.2012 whereby the allotment of the petitioner had been cancelled, but which had already been quashed by the Special Tribunal, the Custodian has also proceeded on the mistaken assumption that respondent No. 4 is in possession of land measuring 4 kanals and 15 marlas covered by survey No. 205 and fixed rent wrongly. The fact of the matter is that the said respondent had illegally occupied the land and had been subsequently dispossessed in accordance with the law. The land continues to be in possession of petitioner. The orders impugned thus have caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and have virtually rendered the judgment and decree passed by Munsiff on 12.12.2014 redundant. On this ground, the impugned orders are legally non-est and are liable to be set aside. (viii) That writ petition bearing OWP No. 1448/12 titled Mohammad Wani vs. State and Others is also pending before the Hon'ble J&K High Court in which status-quo order has been passed with respect to land covered by survey No. 205 and despite that the Custodian Kashmir passed the impugned orders and on that ground the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the revision was preferred against the order before the Custodian Evacuee Property Kashmir. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the revision was preferred against the order before the Custodian Evacuee Property Kashmir. The Custodian issued the notices from time to time and after he failed to appear despite service of the notice, the case was considered on merits and an order passed on 20.03.2015. Further submitted that as per the report of the Tehsildar dated 15.12.2012, the respondents and other seven persons were found to be in possession of the Evacuee Property to the extent of area mentioned against their names. The respondents were found to be in possession of 04 kanals and 15 kanals of land in equal shares under survey No. 205. They were found to be in physical/cultivating possession. On the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar, the respondents were found to be in physical/cultivating possession, as such, order passed by the Deputy Custodian and Custodian Kashmir does not suffer any illegality. 3. The counsel for the respondents further submitted that order 31.01.2015 apart from upholding the order of the Deputy Custodian Srinagar, the custodian regularized the possession of 25 Kanals and 14 Marlas of land found to be in physical/cultivating possession of the persons including of the respondents on terms and conditions mentioned therein. By regularizing the possession, no illegality has been committed by the Custodian particularly in view of the report submitted and considered by the Tehsildar concerned. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that second order which has been challenged by virtue of this Revision petition pertains to the persons other than person mentioned in order dated 31.01.2015, who are in possession of the land measuring 17 kanals and 10 marlas. The order dated 31.1.2015 refers to and pertain to different persons whereas order dated 20.03.2015 is with regard to different persons, namely, Abdul Gani Ganie, Abdullah Ganie, Abdul Salam S/o. Rehman and Nissar Ahmad Ganie, Mohammad Jamal Ganie of Peth Kanihama. By this order, the custodian has also directed the Tehsildar to recover the amount from the Ex-allottee, the petitioner, as arrears of land under land revenue Act. The orders are different pertaining to different persons, as such, a common revision would not lie before this Tribunal and still this has been done. On this count, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The orders are different pertaining to different persons, as such, a common revision would not lie before this Tribunal and still this has been done. On this count, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The respondents further submitted that possession of the evacuee land with eight persons whose names are referred to in the order of Deputy Custodian and Custodian including that of the respondents, has not been disputed. The receipt of the possession given by the petitioner is signed by him, Numberdar and Chowkidar, but nowhere it is provided that the Tehsildar or Naib-Tehsildar or even Patwari has handed over the possession of the land to the petitioner. If the contention of the petitioner is taken to be as correct, even then the report of superdari has been issued by the Patwari concerned and signed by the Tehsildar Beerwah. The documents produced by the petitioner to support that he is in possession of the land or that he was in possession of the land is not correct and are vague in the sense that the documents do speak about the ground realities. 6. The respondents further submitted that the petitioner has managed these documents. The complete answer to this alleged fact is a report submitted by the Field Assistant Evacuee Property Srinagar on 12.07.2012 which is also annexed with the petition, which confirms that on the day of 12.07.2012 the land in question is in possession of Ghulam Mohammad, Ali Mohammad Wani and Mohammad Qasim Wani, Sons of Hussain Wani and residents of Wata-Magam. Ghulam Mohammad, Respondent No. 4, is one of the persons and rest of the brothers. Apart from them other persons have been mentioned who are in possession thereof. The trees standing on the land has been mentioned in the report which is in the occupation of Ghulam Mohammad Wani, the answering respondent. 7. Under law, the allotment would not mean or this work will presume that the allottee is in possession of land particularly when the land is in possession of the answering respondent to the extent of 04 kanals and 15 marlas. 8. In view of the factual aspect and the report of the officers of the evacuee property which are not challenged by the petitioner, the order passed on 30.01.2015 is valid and the revision deserves to be dismissed on this count also. 9. 8. In view of the factual aspect and the report of the officers of the evacuee property which are not challenged by the petitioner, the order passed on 30.01.2015 is valid and the revision deserves to be dismissed on this count also. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that revision petition, question of facts have been disputed and in fact the petitioner wants this Tribunal to decide the disputed questions of facts. Though there is no question of law involved in the revision petition, therefore, on this sole count, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed in limini. To this extent, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on case titled Ram Lal and Another vs. Bachno Devi and Another, 2012 (3) JKJ 4 [Tri] wherein it has been held that the Tribunal which has powers to hear the revision as per provisions of J&K Special tribunal Act 1988, which revision would lie before the Minister concerned under section (3(a) of Evacuees Property Act) while exercising the revision powers. The Tribunal had not jurisdiction to disturb the finding and the fact unless it is perverse in nature. Under Section 30(a) of the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, Smvt. 2006, the Minister In-charge of the evacuee Property Department will have the powers of the revision to see the illegality or proprietary of an order passed by Custodian or Custodian General. 10. The illegality or proprietary means where the impugned order is inconformity with the law applicable to case and where court below was having jurisdiction to pass such an order. The order impugned challenged in this revision is in accordance with law and the officer passing the order had jurisdiction to do so. The finding of the fact are based on the report signed by the officers of the Evacuees Department which have not been called in question, as such, the finding of the fact cannot be disturbed and they have to believe as correct. In view of this legal position, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record available on file and given thoughtful consideration. 12. It is an established fact that the impugned order stand passed at the back of petitioner. In view of this legal position, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record available on file and given thoughtful consideration. 12. It is an established fact that the impugned order stand passed at the back of petitioner. Also it is an established fact that the land measuring 04 Kanal and 15 Marlas covered by survey No. 205 and land measuring 10 marlas covered by survey No. 292 was allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner was initially put in possession by the respondents and his allotment stand cancelled only that he has disposed of the poplar and Bran trees. 13. At this stage without going through the controversy, it is an established fact that the petitioner was handover the possession of the said land measuring 04 kanals and 15 Marlas falling under Survey No. 205 and land measuring 10 marlas bearing survey No. 292 estate. His allotment stand cancelled on some complaint wherein it has been alleged that he has felled down poplar and Brun trees and when the appeal was filed against the order that the custodian has not followed the mandate of Rule 14(3) of the Evacuee's (Administration of Property) Rules which concerned procedure for cancellation of allotment provides as under:- Rule 14(3) "the Custodian may cancel an allotment and evict the allottee if he is satisfied that (i) and (ii). Provided that............... Provided further that............... Provided also that in all other cases, referred to above, a reasonable notice shall be given to an allottee before an order of cancellation of the allotment is made by the custodian. 14. The above quoted provision would show that before cancelling allotment, the custodian is required to given reasonable notice to the allottee. The said provisions have come up for consideration and interpretation before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K on many occasions. It has been emphatically ruled by the Hon'ble High Court that giving of reasonable opportunity before passing any adverse order is mandatory and that noncompliance with the said provision would render the action as illegal. That apart, after noticing the allottee a proper enquiry is required to be conducted in which allottee is supposed to be associated. Only then it would be considered as reasonable opportunity. That apart, after noticing the allottee a proper enquiry is required to be conducted in which allottee is supposed to be associated. Only then it would be considered as reasonable opportunity. The legal position has been explained in S. Bupinder Singh vs. Custodian Evacuee Property Kashmir, Srinagar, JKJ Soft JKJ/8146 : 1978 KLJ 92 and Masterpro Engineering College and Another vs. State of J&K and Others, 2010 (3) JKJ 754 [HC]. The same principle has been followed by the Special Tribunal in Sarwan Kumar vs. Custodian EP, Jammu and Others, 2012 (2) JKJ 22 [Tri], Om Prakash vs. Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu and Others, 2007 (3) JKJ 28 [Tri] and Mohd. Sharief and Others vs. Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu and Others, 2010 (3) JKJ 4 [Tri]. 15. In the instant case, the perusal of the impugned order would reveal that some notice has been issued on 11.12.2014 for appearance of petitioner on 16.12.2014. The said notice it appears has been returned with the intimation that the petitioner is out of station and will return after three or four months. The perusal of the impugned order would reveal that said intimation is based on the statement of one Rifat Hussain who is described to be daughter- in-law of the petitioner. However, it would be significant to state that after the floods, the son of the petitioner was living separately at Baghwanpora, Lalbazar, Srinagar. However, it is a fact that the petitioner was out of station for four months starting from second week of December, which fact has rightly come to the notice of the Custodian. The proper course would have been to await the return of petitioner, particularly when there was no urgency in the matter. However, in the present case, the custodian has acted in hot and haste manner. Despite the fact that custodian knew that petitioner was out of station and would return only after three months, the custodian has proceeded ahead in the matter and passed the impugned order. The object is to give reasonable opportunity to present the cause against proposed action. Once it was intimated to Custodian that petitioner is out of station, any notice to appear cannot be said to be giving of reasonable opportunity particularly when procedure for service of summons as provided in Rule 18 of Rules has not be followed and give complete go by. Once it was intimated to Custodian that petitioner is out of station, any notice to appear cannot be said to be giving of reasonable opportunity particularly when procedure for service of summons as provided in Rule 18 of Rules has not be followed and give complete go by. The genesis of the impugned order is the allegation that petitioner has felled the poplar and bran trees standing on the evacuee's property. Though the said information was previously made basis for cancellation of allotment by the Deputy Custodian. The said order has been already set aside by the learned Tribunal. The Custodian was supposed to consider the matter afresh and give valid reasons for cancelling the allotment and as to whether felling of trees is a ground for cancellation of allotment. The custodian has not given any reason but simply observed that order of Dy. Custodian is maintained. Felling of poplar and bran trees in any case could not be a ground for cancelling the allotment. The grounds on which allotment can be cancelled are provided in Rule 14 itself. Viewed thus, keeping above observations into consideration, the revision is allowed and orders impugned passed by the court below are set aside and case is remanded back along with the copy of this order for denovo enquiry as petitioner has not been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard with further direction to the Custodian Kashmir that he shall dispose of the application within a period of two months from today. He shall dispose of the application in light of observations made herein above. The case is accordingly disposed of and shall be consigned to records after its due completion.