news details |
|
|
| HC holds allottee can’t retain any right over the properties | | Struggling for the last more than 53 years for possession of his own property | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | July 16
Coming to the rescue of the owner of the property, who has been struggling for the last over 53 years, Justice J P Singh of J&K High Court Jammu today observed that the petitioners cannot be said to have retained any right which may defeat the absolute right of an owner like Khairati Lal over his properties.
This land mark judgment was pronounced in two petitions filed by the allottee. It is worthwhile to mention here Khairati Lal's parents and other adult members of the family were killed by the raiders during the disturbances of 1947 in the State of J&K, Khairati Lal was taken to POK during the disturbances, he, however, managed to return after about 6/7 years. The properties of the family, in the meanwhile had been declared as Evacuees Property and allotted to various local and non-local displaced persons. Khairati Lal had obtained requisite certificates under rule framed under the J&K State Evacuees Act for restoration of his property in full. A detailed enquiry appears to have been held in the matter by Assistant Custodian, Rajouri, who directed restoration of the property to Khairati Lal. The property which was in possession of the locals was restored to his possession, whereas only part of the possession of the property in occupation of the displaced persons could be delivered to him as the other displaced persons had resisted the delivery of the possession. Custodian EP Jammu directed the Assistant Custodian Rajouri to deliver the possession of land which stood restored to Khairati Lal in 1955. The order of Custodian EP was questioned by the allottes in appeal before Custodian General which was dismissed under a detailed order on January 27, 1965. The order of the Custodian General remained unquestioned for about 22 years; the successors of Mohan Singh questioned the said order before the J&K Special Tribunal Jammu in a revision petition. The Special Tribunal, however, dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable. The legal representatives of Mohan Singh, appears to have questioned the Special Tribunal Order in a petition in the High Court. The petitions were allowed vide judgment October 22, 1998 by issuing a direction to the Tribunal for fresh decision in the matter in accordance with the observations made in the judgment. Questioning the judgment of Single Judge Khairati Lal filed two LPAs which were disposed of by a Division Bench with the direction to the Tribunal that before deciding the revision petition on the merit it would apt to frame preliminary issues. It is only after giving finding on the said issue; the revision petition would be decided on merit. The Special Tribunal dismissed these revision petitions and the petitioner's allottee had approached High Court with two petitions challenging the order of the Special Tribunal passed on August 20, 2007 whereby their revision petitions have been dismissed.
Justice JP Singh in approved for reporting judgment, after hearing Adv M.R Qureshi appearing for the petitioners whereas Adv Sr. Adv SS Lehar with Adv Bhushan Lal appearing for the respondents, observed that this Court is agreement with the view taken by the Special Tribunal that the petitioner had not made out any case much less projecting sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filling their revision petitions particularly when their predecessors 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 on January 27, 1965 for about 22 years. Court further observed that Khairati Lal has fundamental right to the properties left by his predecessors 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 forced absence from the State, the predecessors of the petitioners would not, in any case vest any such right in the petitioners which can defeat Khairati Lal's ownership rights over his property.
In the landmark judgment Justice Singh further observed that petitioner's plea that they cannot be deprived of the possession of the property which had been allotted to them during the period of temporary absence of Khairati Lal, over which they have acquired property rights in terms of the Government orders, said that plea is misconceived, because Khairati Lal returned to the state for his permanent settlement would take away all that had been given to the petitioners and their predecessors. This is so because the petitioners or their predecessors could claim rights of stay on the property only so long as its status remained as that of an Evacuee Property. The property in question having ceased to remain as Evacuee Property, petitioners cannot be said to have retained any right therein which may defeat the absolute right of an owner, like Khairati Lal over his properties. The petitioners cannot thus deprive Khairati Lal the owner of the property of the possession. The petitioners had therefore, no locus-standi to question orders passed by the Assistant Custodian Rajouri and Custodian General EP J&K and to file revision petitions before the Special Tribunal. Court do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by J&K Special Tribunal in dismissing petitioner's revision petitions and with these observations dismissed these petitions. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
