JUDGMENT : MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J. 1. In the instant petition, the person (Gh. Nabi Mir) who was declared as missing/untraceable for about 25 years is stated to be alive. The petitioner, who had accepted the ex-gratia relief of Rs. 01 lakh as also Rs. 04 lakhs as cash compensation in lieu of Government employment on the basis of the reports submitted by the competent authority, has been directed to remit the same in the office account of the respondents in terms of the impugned communication No. DCK/R/GN/257-58 dated 20.07.2015. 2. The brief facts are summarized as under: Ghulam Nabi Mir, a bachelor was living with his brother, i.e. petitioner in the year 1990, and he went to Kupwara market but did not return. During the said year, the District Kupwara, especially the village of the petitioner, used to be a hub of the militancy. Despite the best possible efforts, the brother of the petitioner could not be found. The concerned police was also approached for the purpose but they could not also find the missing person. The Chowkidar of the village had also informed the police agencies regarding the disappearance of the brother of the petitioner. Petitioner had also lodged a written report regarding the disappearance of his brother with the concerned authorities. 3. It is also urged in the writ petition that petitioner was informed by the revenue agency as also by the police that whereabouts of his brother are not known for more than a decade as such, compensation could be claimed from the Government. Accordingly, on the directions of Tehsildar concerned and the police agencies, petitioner submitted an application for grant of ex-gratia relief and other benefits under SRO-43. 4. The Naib Teshildar published a communication dated April 7, 2011, in a local daily newspaper for inviting objections against the dependency certificate of the petitioner from the interested persons. A copy of the paper cutting is annexed with the petition as annexure-B. The Tehsildar concerned certified that the brother of the petitioner is missing since the year 1990 and nobody from the family has taken any benefit under SRO-43 except the ex-gratia relief of Rs. 1.00 lac. It is stated that in the year 2012 an amount of Rs. 4.00 lacs was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner as cash compensation under SRO-43 in lieu of the employment. 5. 1.00 lac. It is stated that in the year 2012 an amount of Rs. 4.00 lacs was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner as cash compensation under SRO-43 in lieu of the employment. 5. It is further stated that the official respondents have taken more than 2.00 lac rupees from the petitioner in processing his case. Besides, the claim has been finalized in 22 years. That in the year 2014, missing brother of the petitioner appeared all of a sudden in his village to the surprise of one and all after a gap of more than 24 years. Accordingly, Assistant Commissioner Revenue vide his communication No. DCK/R/GN/257-58 dated 20.07.2015 addressed to Teshildar Kupwara directed to recover the sanctioned amount from the petitioner and remit it into his official account. In pursuance of the said communication Teshildar Kupwara has addressed a communication to J&K Bank branch Awoora/Kupwara/ Trehgam to provide the bank account details of the petitioner and his son and it is also directed that if any amount is lying in the accounts, same shall be stopped till further orders. 6. It is stated that the Teshildar concerned has also issued a notice dated 22.07.2015, to the petitioner and his brother for appearance. In pursuance of the said notice, petitioner along with his brother appeared before the Tehsildar and narrated the events as to how the concerned officials have extorted almost half of the amount in processing the case but the respondents are adamant to recover the same under the Land Revenue Act. 7. It is stated in the writ petition that that the impugned communication dated 20.07.2015 of the Assistant Commissioner Revenue addressed to Tehsildar Kupwara to recover the ex-gratia relief from the petitioner as arrears of land under the Land Revenue Act is bad in law and the same is challenged on the ground that the recovery cannot be initiated without affording an opportunity of being heard before granting the certificate of recovery. It is stated that no such certificate was issued by the Dy. Commissioner concerned and as such, the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner dated 20.07.2015 is in violation of the rules, therefor, the whole process is bad in law and deserves to be set-aside. 8. It is stated that no such certificate was issued by the Dy. Commissioner concerned and as such, the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner dated 20.07.2015 is in violation of the rules, therefor, the whole process is bad in law and deserves to be set-aside. 8. It is stated that no notice under section 90 and 91 of the Land Revenue Act to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, was ever issued to the petitioner which is mandatory for initiating any action against an individual and an opportunity of hearing, to put-forth his version, is also required to be provided to him. As per the Land Revenue Act, there is no provision for recovery of the ex-gratia relief. Even otherwise, the respondents have no right to assume jurisdiction under the Land Revenue Act, and issue the impugned order. As such, the order impugned in this petition deserves to be set aside. 9. It is also agitated in the petition that if the Government intends to declare any sum as recoverable that is required to be notified in the Government Gazettee as the sum recoverable under the Land Revenue Act and in absence of which the procedure adopted would be without jurisdiction, hence bad in law and deserves to be set-aside. 10. Per-cantra, reply stands filed by the respondents and it is submitted that the brother of the petitioner, left the home for earning livelihood to Uttrakhand in the year 1990-91 till 2014, and during this period the petitioner by misrepresentation of facts, managed to get an ex-gratia of Rs. 1.00 lakh and Rs. 4.00 lacs, as benefit under SRO 43 in lieu of the government employment. It is also stated that petitioner by misrepresentation has managed dependency certificate and after the arrival of the alleged disappeared person who is alive and is now living at his native village at Ladervan Kupwara, the petitioner was directed to repay the amount and deposit the same in Government Treasury but he no heed was paid by the petitioner. Accordingly, vide communication dated 20.07.2020, Tehsildar Kupwara was directed to recover the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac and Rs. 4.00 lacs from the NOK’s of the said missing person and remit the same in office account. 11. Accordingly, vide communication dated 20.07.2020, Tehsildar Kupwara was directed to recover the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac and Rs. 4.00 lacs from the NOK’s of the said missing person and remit the same in office account. 11. It is further stated in the reply that petitioner has processed the case at his own level by misleading the authorities and is leveling false allegations against the departmental authorities. It is also averred in the reply filed by respondent No. 5 & 6 that the missing person has not contacted his family for last 10 years. The report was enquired methodically by the police Station Trehgam and put their all efforts to trace out the missing person and circumstances attached thereto. During enquiry police could not generate the useful intelligence in this regard due to the time gap of ten years. The police was unable to trace out the missing person till the Scrutiny Committee concluded the missing report as Untraced and subsequently ex-gratia relief was sanctioned in favour of next of NOK’s by the District administration, Kupwara. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties, have considered the pleadings, the submissions of the parties. 13. Admittedly, ex-gratia relief to the tune of Rs. 1.00 and 4.00 lacs under SRO 43 in lieu of the public employment was granted to the petitioner on account of the fact that his brother had gone missing. It was the competent authority who constituted the committee and on the basis of the report submitted by the Scrutiny Committee the ex-gratia relief was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. However, it was nowhere reflected in the Government order No. 1109/DCK/Adm of 2004 dated 11.02.2004, as also in order No. 451/DCK/Adm of 2012 dated 07.02.20212 whereby the petitioner was granted cash compensation of Rs. 4.00 lacs in terms of SRO 43 in lieu of employment, that any undertaking is required to be filed by the petitioner that in case his brother turns out to be alive then in that eventuality, petitioner is supposed to reimburse the said amount. Moreover the competent authority after taking requisite measures had declared the brother of the petitioner as untraceable as such, the respondents without conducting proper enquiry with respect to the bonafides/intent of the petitioner had no authority to issue the order impugned dated 20.07.2015. 14. Moreover the competent authority after taking requisite measures had declared the brother of the petitioner as untraceable as such, the respondents without conducting proper enquiry with respect to the bonafides/intent of the petitioner had no authority to issue the order impugned dated 20.07.2015. 14. In view of given facts and circumstances and on the consensus of learned counsel for the parties, order dated 20.07.2015, is set aside with a direction to respondent No. 2-Dy. Commissioner, Kupwara, to conduct a fresh enquiry in the matter and pass appropriate orders thereon as warranted under law.