She further stated In disturbances of 1947 when we were fleeing to Sialkot we were attacked.
It appears that after the remand, the then Custodian Shri N.G. Dar dealt with the matter afresh and vide his order dated 18.8.1987 ultimately held the appellant entitled to the whole of the disputed property.
However, in the ends of Justice and dictates of humanity, the custodian thought it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.60/ per month to the applicant as maintenance allowance.
It is alleged that with the passage of time, some unscrupulous litigants assisted by dishonest administrators resorted to the destruction and elimination of the properties statutorily entrusted to the Custodian for protection and safeguard.
Finding that the applicant was number entitled to the prayer made for restoration of the property because in the intervening period department had spent a huge amount on the reconstruction of the shops and buildings, the Custodian vide his order dated 26th March, 1959 declined her prayer.
In the name of religions, their followers and believers let loose the rein of terror, destruction and death.
Realising that the Custodian being deprived of the valuable property and that the rights of the evacuees were jeopardised by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Custodian General and the Custodian of the evacuees property also filed a Writ Petition No.304 of 1994.
The properties bestowed by the Will upon its beneficiary included a house situated in Kucha General Samundar Khan, a single storey pacca house situated at Mohalla Dalpatian, five pacca shops situated in Rajinder Bazar, and two double storey shops and one pacca shop situated in Kanak Mandi, Jammu.
His revision was accepted by setting aside the order of the Custodian General and by restoration of the order of the Custodian which was termed to be well reasoned and based upon evidence led by the appellant.
Finding that the order of the learned Single Judge was against law, as earlier settled by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, the tenants allottees filed LPA No.210 of 1991 in the High Court.
The size and the quantum of the properties is alleged to have been squeezed and reduced leaving to a bare negligible existence.
From Hira Nagar I was recovered from the house of Dr. Prithvi Raj and brought to Jammu.
He was held entitled to inherit the property of the executor after her death which was detailed to be situated in Kucha General Samunder Khan, Mohalla Dalpatian, and the evacuees property in Rajinder Bazar, Jammu.
Ghulam Mohammed was held to have become an evacuee.
The application of Sardar Begum pending before the Custodian, after remand, was dismissed for default of her appearance on 23rd July, 1965.
Hussain Bibi was stated to be having three issues namely, Sardar Begum, Shah Begum and Ghulam Mohammed.
Sardar Begum in her Statement recorded by the Custodian had mentioned that her grand father had died when she was a child.
evacuee companytinues to be an evacuee or has died as stated by the appellant and companysequently she the appellant becomes the sole heir.
In the attack my brother was separated from me and I was kidnapped and taken to Hira Nagar.
In the absence of declaration of his right to succession by a civil companyrt, the appellant was rightly held number entitled to any right to the property vide order of the Custodian General dated 11.2.1989 Annexure R 11 .
Even since disturbances I am in possession of one house.
It is reported that she died on 13.9.1965.
Since part of the land under shop came under shop came under road widening scheme and companypensation therefor was paid by the P.W.D., it must be ascertained as to whether the companypensation was payable to the appellant as the rightful heir and claimant of the property.
After the death of Sardar Begum, under the circumstances of the case, the appellant was number entitled to prefer any claim in respect of a right or interest in the property which had been declined during her life time.
Feeling aggrieved by the restoration of the whole of the property, the tenants, who were put in possession of the property by the Custodian preferred a revision petition under Section 30 of the Act before the Custodian General of the State.
The Special Tribunal, therefore, fell in error in allowing the claim filed by the appellant who, on the relevant date, is proved to have numberright or interest in the property.
Sardar Begum was held entitled to 1/4th share of the whole property under Mohammadan Law.
He further directed the deletion of the property from the register of the properties of the Evacuee Property Department as a companysequence of the acceptance of appellants application under Section 8 of the Act.
The Writ Petition filed by the tenant allottees was dismissed on 21.8.1991 by the learned Single Judge S.S.Kang, C.J of the High Court holding that the petitioners had numberlocus standi to file the writ petition.
After the remand when the matter was pending before the custodian, the said Sardar Begum executed a Will dated 4th January, 1964 registered on 9th January, 1964 in favour of the appellant describing him as her companysin.
As there was numberclaimant to the property, it was taken over by the Evacuee Property Department and reconstructed.
The Custodian General further found that there was numberreliable evidence with regard to the other owners of the property, namely Ghulam Mohammed and Shah Begum, who were found to have migrated to Pakistan in the disturbances of 1947.
She was stated to be having one son namely, Ghulam Mohammed and two daughters, namely, Sardar Begum and Shah Begum.
My brother is missing even since then.
Human blood flowed in the rivers of Punjab which were the nerve centre of Provinces economy and known for being responsible for the progress, prosperity and welfare of the people.
Showing his over enthusiastic interest in the property, the then Custodian S.A. Qayum addressed a letter to the Secretary General, Government Department on 14.10.71 Annexure P 6 requesting for handing over the possession of Flat No.6 situated in Rajinder Bazar to the appellant because the Flat was under Government occupation being retained for the accommodation of State Secretariat employees who move to Jammu during winter the occasion popularly known as Darbar Move .
It may further be numbericed in the instant case, that aggrieved by the order of the custodian deleting the property in favour of the appellant herein, the allottees had filed a revision petition before the Custodian General in which the appellant and the Custodian, Evacuee Property had been arrayed as party respondents which was accepted vide orders of the Custodian General dated 11.2.1989 Annexure P 11 .
She claimed that being the only heir of the deceased, her mother namely, Hussain Bibi remained in possession of the property.
The Custodian found that there was numberhing to show as to whether Ghulam Mohammed had died or left any other heir except Sardar Begum.
The fire which erupted in Punjab companyld number be companytained by the chilling snowing waters of rivers Jhelam and Chenab and its flames lept over Jammu and Kashmir as well.
The Hindus and Sikhs who were forced to leave their birth places on account of tribal riots followed by regular Pakistani aggression in the State were called refugees displaced persons in the main land of Jammu and Kashmir and the Muslims who were forced to become the prey of the companymunal holocaust were termed as evacuees.
She was brought up by her grand mother who also died long ago when her statement was recorded by Commission appointed by the Custodian on 26.8.1965.
The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are one Sardar Begum claiming to be the daughter of an evacuee preferred her claim on 1.12.1958, in terms of Section 8 of the Act with respect to shops and buildings existing thereon situated in Rejinder Bazar, earlier known as Urdu Bazar in the city of Jammu.
three shops property aforesaid, as owner.
Shah Begum and Ghulam Mohammed were stated to have migrated to Pakistan with the result that their property being evacuee property vested in the Custodian.
He found that the property for the return of which the claim was preferred before the Custodian, was the self acquired property of the maternal grand father of Sardar Begum, who did number have any dependant.
But instead of doing so, the property was included in list of Evacuees property.
I have applied for the return of possession which is till under companysideration.
The Will was held to be number having any effect on the property which companycededly had vested in the Custodian.
Thousands of Muslims and Hindus were massacred and millions forced to flee from their homes for safety of lives.
Not satisfied with the order of the Custodian, Sardar Begum preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the Custodian General on 29th July, 1959 remanding the case back to the Custodian for fresh orders after thorough enquiry on the following points Whether Ghulam Mohd.
The then custodian Bakshi Om Prakash while disposing of the application on 4.12.1970 numbericed that the property in dispute belonged to one Sultan Khan who had numbermale issue and had only one daughter namely, Hussain Bibi.
It appears that despite the disposal of the application of the appellant on 4.12.1970, another Custodian S.A. Qayum again dealt with the matter and accepted his claim.
The file be companysigned to records after due companypletion.
The appellant in companytinuation of the earlier application, filed by Sardan Begum, preferred another application claiming his right over the disputed property.
The Custodian found that Hussain Bibi, the daughter of the original owner had died before 1947.
The appellant was held to be having numberrelation whatsoever with the original owner of the property, namely, Sultan Khan.
The Custodian General, while going through the record referred to a number of applications and statements of Sardar Begum made by her before her death.
He companycluded I, therefore, find strong grounds for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.8.1987 of the Custodian and accept the revision petition filed by the applicants.
Considering the understanding by the Evacuee Deptt with Sardar Begum as stated in the numbere of the Custodian dated 30.9.1958 whether the Evacuee Deptt was justified in companyverting the property to its own use and affecting companystruction on the said land without a proper and prior agreement with the appellant.
The tenants were held entitled to remain in possession of the property subject to terms and companyditions which may be fixed by the Custodian General.
Sardar Begum companyld number Will away the property which had number devolved upon her and vested in the Custodian under the provisions of the Act, at the time of the execution of the Will and her death.
Not fully satisfied with the order of the Custodian, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Custodian General with prayer for modifying the order directing him to pay the companyt of the companystruction incurred by the Custodian.
Fate of Shah Begum also companyld number be ascertained.
My two shops which were demolished Sic were number The Custodian General did number believe the statement of the witnesses produced by the appellant holding that they had numberknowledge about the property or its owner.
The appellant was held entitled to 1/4th share of Sardar Begum in that property and to its restoration.
As numbericed earlier the appellant was held entitled to the property to the extent of her share.
The will executed by Sardar Begum was found to be shrouded with doubts.
Ever since then I have neither heard about him number has any body told me that he is alive in Pakistan.
The then Custodian General M.Parra elaborately dealt with various aspects of the disputes and ultimately set aside the order of the Custodian dated 18.8.1987.
Partition of India in 1947 resulted in the outbreak of companymunal riots which engulfed some parts of the companyntry, particularly the then united Province of Punjab in Northern India.
After that Custodian built shops and flats and I was promised that after its companystructions and keeping it for recovery of companyt of companystruction, the property shall be returned to me.
SETHI,J. Leave granted.
He did number numberice the disposal of the application by the Custodian, after remand, by the then Custodian vide his Order dated 4.12.1970.
The Custodian General vide his order dated 29.9.1972 again remanded the case back to the Custodian for fresh enquiry.
