Civil Court Dealing With A Suit Regarding An Evacuee Property Is Supposed To Notify The Custodian: J&K&L HC
The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court observed that civil court dealing with a suit regarding an evacuee property is supposed to notify the Custodian.
The Court noted that the legislative intent of Section 35 of Jammu & Kashmir State Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, Svt 2006 is to ensure custodian’s involvement in suits affecting evacuee property.
The Court was hearing the second appeal which confirmed the decision of the lower Court that rejected the petition for lack of jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit.
The bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed, “Jammu & Kashmir State Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 itself envisages the situation that a civil suit regarding an evacuee property if taken cognizance by a civil court then in that eventuality, the civil court is supposed to notify the Custodian Evacuees’ Property...The legislative intendment of the section 35 is that even if a civil suit/revenue suit with respect to an evacuee property has come to be taken cognizance by or before the civil/revenue court, then the Custodian Evacuee is not to be kept uninformed because at the end of the day, the adjudication of a civil suit/revenue suit is going to effect no other property than the evacuee property of which the Custodian is a statutory caretaker and manager.”
Advocate S.M. Choudhary appeared for the Appellant and Advocate A.P. Singh appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
Manzoor Hussain and the appellants, plaintiffs in a civil suit in Jammu, seek a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent twelve defendants (including administrative authorities) from interfering with their possession of 43 kanal and 6 marlas of evacuee land or dispossessing them without legal process. Respondent has requested the suit's rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
In this civil second appeal, the appellants argue that both lower courts erred by focusing on the Jammu & Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006, rather than recognizing that the suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction was a private matter unrelated to the Act.
The Court noted that the appellants are equally alien to the suit property as they intend to claim the respondents are. According to the Court, in that scenario, the appellants in state of trespassers qua the evacuee property are meaning to injunct not only the private respondents whom the appellants reckoned to be prospective trespassers but even the public officials who by no stretch of the imagination can be said to be with a mindset of the trespassers.
The Court said that it cannot reckon that the suit filed by the appellants is actually against the private individuals but is equally aimed against the public officials.
The Court said that the Jammu & Kashmir State Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 itself envisages the situation that a civil suit regarding an evacuee's property if taken cognizance by a civil court then in that eventuality, the civil court is supposed to notify the Custodian Evacuees’ Property. This is what is the mandate of section 35 of the Jammu & Kashmir State Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006.
Accordingly, the Court suit found the filed by the appellants as barred under section 31 of the Act.
Consequently, the Court disposed of the Second Appeal.
Cause Title: Manzoor Hussain v. Syed Mohasin Abbas
