GHULAM QADIR v. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

· is not engaged in any subversive activities. In other words whereas heirs of the A · evacuee have a right to pray for restoratio~ under Section 14 of the Act, no such right is conferred upon the heirs of a claimant under Section 8 of the Act. · Reasons are obvious, because Section 8 contemplates the preferring of claim within 30 days of the date of the vesting of the evacuee property in the custodian which does not envisage the claim by a legal heir whereas application under Section 14 can be preferred at any time when the evacuee returns back to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. It may further be noticed that the legal heirs contemplated under Rule 14 are such heirs which an evacuee has, meaning thereby the heirs who had also become the evacuee or became his heir outside the State of Jammu & Kashmir, having interest in the property by operation of law. To simplify the position it can be said that any person who himself did not become an evacuee within the meaning of Section 2(c) cannot prefer a claim on behalf of an evacuee on the ground of becoming his heir with the lapse of time. Conferment of rights upon the persons living in the State of Jammu & Kashmir with respect to the property of an evacuee would defeat the very purpose of the Act, particularly the one intended to be achieved by Section 14. D The aforesaid section was enacted to encourage such persons who were forced to leave their homes, to come back and settle and become the part of the mainstream of the· political life in the State of Jamtnu & Kashmir. It may not be out of place to mention that the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir itself has made provision for such people reserving almost one fourth of the Legislative Assembly seats for them which can be filled up only when they become a part E of the mainstream of the socio-political-economic life of the people of the said State.

In view of our findings that the allottees/lessees of the evacuee property are necessary parties to the proceedings initiated either under Section 8 or · F Section 14 and the custodian under the Act performs dual duties of administering the property and adjudicating the claims over the evacuee properties under the Act, we find no fault with the judgment impugned holdip.g that both the allottee as well as the Custodian General had locus to challenge the order of the Special Tribunal. The scope. of revisional power under the Act is wider than the powers exercisable in revision petitions filed underthe Code of Civil Procedure or the G ·Code of Criminal Procedure and in appropriate cases the reVisional authority can go into the questions of fact to decide the legality and propriety of the action taken arid for the purposes of giving appropriate directions. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, in the present case, the Custodian General had not committed any error of law .by lo?king into the facts for the purposes H

p. 544 Copy page pinpoint

A of ascertaining as to whether appellant had acquired any interest on the basis of the Wm executed by Sardar Begnm or the probate issued in his favour. The questions of title with respect to the evacuee.- property cannot be adjudicated under the Act for which appropriate proceedings are required to be instituted in the civil court. It is further held that with the passage of time Section 8 of the Act hac; out-lived its utility and has become redundant. No further application B under the said section can be entertained and .the plea of limitation with respect to the pending disputes has to be.decided as per our directions in this judgment. - It is hoped that the State Government and the authorities under the Act shall take effective steps to safeguard and protect !he properties of the evacuee for whose benefit the Act has been enacted. The judgment of the learned Single c Judge 21.8.1991 does not lay good law and the order of the Special Tribunal is not sustainable.

There is no merit in these appeals which are accordingiy dismissed but . under the circumstances without any order as to .costs.

S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.