JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are mother and son. 3. The petitioner no. 1 had come to apply for restoration of an evacuee house property which was belonging to her uncle Umar Din who lost his life in 1947 disturbances but was believed to have migrated to Pakistan and, therefore, his house property was reckoned and declared to be an evacuee property. The petitioner no. 1, however, claiming herself to be the legal heir of her uncle-Umar Din sought restoration of the house property situated in Gali Kumharan, Talab Khatikan, Jammu by apprising the fact that his uncle Umar Din had not suffered displacement to Pakistan but had suffered loss of his life in 1947 in J&K itself. 4. The respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu, vide his order dated 22.06.1968, had dismissed the claim for restoration of the said house property of Uman Din in favour of the petitioner no 1 which led her to file a statutory appeal before the respondent no. 2-the Custodian General (J&K) who came to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner no. 1 ordering deletion of the said house property of Uman Din from being an evacuee property and holding the petitioner no. 1 to be entitled to have the restoration of the said house property in her favour as being the legal heir of said Uman Din. 5. The respondent no. 2-Custodian General came to allow the appeal of the petitioner no. 1 vide his order dated 04.01.1969 by allowing the application for restoration filed by the petitioner no. 1 on 31.08.1963. 6. This order of the respondent no. 2-Custodian General (J&K) Jammu attained finality and thus the house property as existing in its form at the relevant point of time in the year 1969 came to be vested in the petitioner no. 1 as its owner without any encumbrance. 7. The petitioner no. 2 came to purchase an adjoining house property to the house property so vested in favour of his mother-petitioner no. 1 and this purchase of the adjoining house property by the petitioner no. 2 was by virtue of a sale deed dated 04.08.1990. 8. The petitioners came to merge the two house properties by constructing a new house property in the form of triple storey building having total plot area of 714 sq. ft. situated at ward no. 5, Kucha Ramdasi, Gali Kumharan, Talab Khatikan, Jammu. 2 was by virtue of a sale deed dated 04.08.1990. 8. The petitioners came to merge the two house properties by constructing a new house property in the form of triple storey building having total plot area of 714 sq. ft. situated at ward no. 5, Kucha Ramdasi, Gali Kumharan, Talab Khatikan, Jammu. 9. For the purpose to alienate the said property of triple storey building so existing upon plot area of 714 sq. ft. situated at ward no. 5, Kucha Ramdasi, Gali Kumharan, Talab Khatikan, Jammu, the petitioners came to apply for requisite NOCs and one of the NOCs required is from Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu. 10. The petitioner no. 1 came to submit an application dated 31.01.2023 to the respondent no. 3-Custodian, Evacuees Property, Jammu for seeking the issuance of requisite NOC but the response of the respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu to the said application of the petitioner no. 1 was evasive without coming forward with anything in writing as to the reasons why the respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu was sitting on the matter of issuance of NOC so applied for by the petitioner no. 1. 11. It is against this state of non-action and in action on the part of the respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu that the petitioners came to serve a legal notice dated 27.05.2003 to the respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property Department, Jammu thereby reminding him about the matter of pendency of the petitioner no. 1’s application for grant of NOC awaiting an outcome from his end, but there came no response from the respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu which led the petitioners to this Court with the present writ petition seeking mandamus unto the respondents no. 2 and 3 i.e., the Custodian General (J&K), Jammu and the Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu to issue the requisite NOC. 12. In response to this writ petition, the respondent no. 3-the Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu has come forward with a reply/objections thereby putting into exploit Section 25-A of the Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 (in short, ‘Act of 2006’) to justify the inaction/non-action on the part of the respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu in the matter of grant of NOC in favour of the petitioner no. 1. 13. Thus, the sole basis of reservation at the end of the respondent no. 2006 (in short, ‘Act of 2006’) to justify the inaction/non-action on the part of the respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu in the matter of grant of NOC in favour of the petitioner no. 1. 13. Thus, the sole basis of reservation at the end of the respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu in non-issuance of NOC from his end is section 25-A of the Act of 2006 and as such this Court has a very limited issue before it to adjudicate upon as to whether the respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu is right in his understanding of Section 25-A of the Act of 2006 vis-à-vis the claim of NOC of the petitioner no. 1 with respect to restored property of which she is the absolute owner in the eyes of law. 14. Section 25-A of the Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 reads as under : 25-A. Restriction on transfer of the property (1) No property to which claim is established under section 8 or 14, whether possession thereof has been taken or not by the claimant, may be sold or disposed of in any manner whatsoever without the previous permission of the Government. (2) Any person desirous of selling or disposing of the property referred to in sub-section (1) may apply in the prescribed manner to the Minister Incharge for grant of permission. (3) The Minister Incharge shall refer the application to the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned who shall report the full facts through Custodian General and state whether;- (a) the transaction is being made in good faith or for valuable consideration; or (b) the transaction is prohibited under any law for the time being in force; or (c) the permission to the sale of the property has to be rejected for any other reason. (4) If the application is not rejected under sub-section (3), the Government may grant the permission subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. 15. Before this Court comes to put the interpretation of section 25-A of the Act of 2006 in correct perspective for the sake of correcting the misplaced understanding of the respondent no. 3-Custodian, Evacuees Property, Jammu of the said section, this Court would put an elementary fact in correct perspective and which is that, in the eyes of law, the petitioner no. 3-Custodian, Evacuees Property, Jammu of the said section, this Court would put an elementary fact in correct perspective and which is that, in the eyes of law, the petitioner no. 1 is the absolute owner of the property which came to be restored to her in terms of an order dated 04.01.1969 of the Custodian General (J&K) Jammu. 16. Once the Custodian General (J&K) ordered the deletion of the property from being an evacuee property and restored it in favour of the petitioner no. 1 that in the eyes of law meant and means that the property so restored ceased to be an evacuee property in all intents and purposes and came to be the property of the petitioner no. 1 as good as property which the petitioner no. 1 could have purchased from any owner or inherited from her parents by way of gift or will. 17. Now, once having become an absolute owner of the house property by way of operation of law, was the petitioner no. 1 to suffer a perpetual clog with respect to her ownership qua the property in reference by hit of section 25-A of the Act of 2006 is a question to which the answer is that ownership of a property vests in the holder of the property an absolute right in respect of its possession, enjoyment, succession and transferability. 18. The Custodian General is the highest decision making authority next to the Government under the Act of 2006 and, therefore, the order of deleting the property in reference from being an evacuee property and vesting the same in favour of the petitioner no. 1 is not to be undermined by any subordinate officer under the Act of 2006, in particular, the respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu. By withholding the grant of NOC as applied for by the petitioner no. 1, the respondent no. 3-Custodian, Evacuees Property, Jammu was literally undermining the order of restoration in favour of the petitioner no. 1 passed by the Custodian General (J&K) Jammu. 19. Now, coming to Section 25-A of the Act of 2006, the respondent no. 3-Custodian, Evacuees Property, Jammu’s attempt to exploit it to justify his inaction/non-action is misplaced and misconceived. 20. Section 25-A (1) of the Act of 2006 has put the restriction on sale or disposal in any manner whatsoever without the previous permission of the government. 19. Now, coming to Section 25-A of the Act of 2006, the respondent no. 3-Custodian, Evacuees Property, Jammu’s attempt to exploit it to justify his inaction/non-action is misplaced and misconceived. 20. Section 25-A (1) of the Act of 2006 has put the restriction on sale or disposal in any manner whatsoever without the previous permission of the government. This restriction is operational against a person who is referred in sub-section 2 of Section 25-A of the Act of 2006. If left to the understanding of the respondent no. 3-Custodian, Evacuees Property, Jammu then the very mechanism of Section 8 of the Act of 2006 of restoration of the evacuee property in favour of a claimant on the basis of a claim that property is not an evacuee property would be of no purpose meaning thereby once an evacuee property would always remain to be an evacuee property even if under section 8 of the Act of 2006 it is held to be a non-evacuee property worth restoration to an actual holder of the said property or legal heirs or successors of said person qua the property. 21. Section 25-A of the Act of 2006 cannot be read to mean like this that a property which comes to be deleted after an adjudication by an adjudicatory mechanism under the Act of 2006 would forever remain under the hammer of the Government even if the said property has been restored to his/her owner/successor. 22. The prohibition which is conceived and envisaged under sub section 2 of section 25-A of the Act of 2006 is referable to a person other than a person to whom once registered evacuee property has been restored by declaring the property to be no more an evacuee property. 23. Before a claim is made by a person under Section 8 of the Act of 2006 qua any property entered or registered as an evacuee property, the said property is in a state of administration and dispensation created by the Act of 2006 and in exercise of that right of management, a particular evacuee property may be in the state of allotment to any person on licence or lease basis vesting in the said lessee/licencee a right to transfer the interest in the said evacuee property. 24. 24. Now, it is in that context that sub section 2 of section 25-A of the Act of 2006 is to be read in the context of any person. The expression ‘any person’ cannot be read as inclusive of a person to whom and in whose favour the evacuee property has been restored on the premise of the property not being an evacuee property. 25. Once the property ceases to be an evacuee property by declaration under law in terms of Section 8 of the Act of 2006 then how can that property and its holder under Article 14 of the Constitution of India can be treated as a class apart so as to suffer a perpetual command of Government permission hanging over his/her head in the matter of transfer of the ownership of the very said property vis-à-vis the owner of individually acquired or inherited property who is always at his/her liberty to transfer the ownership of a property so held by him/her at any given point of time requiring no Government permission prior or later in any manner whatsoever. 26. Thus, if one has to read a person who came to be the owner of the property by operation of Section 8 of the Act of 2006 as any person under sub section 2 of section 25-A of the Act of 2006 that means generations to come of the said person in whose favour a property has come to be vested by operation of Section 8 of the Act of 2006 would always remain dependent upon the permission of the Government in the matter of selling or disposing of the property and the expression ‘disposing’ means even in the matter of lease, mortgage, gift, exchange etc. 27. If this understanding is to be given to section 25-A of the Act of 2006 then in the eyes of law it is not the ownership which would be said to have been re-claimed by a person qua the property but perpetual burden not only for a person during his/her life time but for the life time of the generations to come after him or her. This cannot be the intent and purpose of section 25-A of the Act of 2006 which the respondent no. 3-Custodian, Evacuees Property, Jammu is meaning to read into it by sitting over the issuance of NOC as asked for by the petitioner no. 1. 28. This cannot be the intent and purpose of section 25-A of the Act of 2006 which the respondent no. 3-Custodian, Evacuees Property, Jammu is meaning to read into it by sitting over the issuance of NOC as asked for by the petitioner no. 1. 28. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court allows the writ petition and issues a direction to the respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu to issue the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) as applied for by the petitioners qua the property mentioned in their application submitted for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) before and by the respondent no. 3-Custodian Evacuees Property, Jammu. 29. The writ petition is disposed of along with connected application(s).