Sanjeev Kumar ORDER
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
1. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 15.02.2011, whereby order of Jammu & Kashmir Tribunal dated 27.10.2008 has been quashed and the appellants have been given liberty to approach the Custodian Evacuee's Property by way of application/claim under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"). With a view to appreciate the rival contention of the parties, it would be appropriate to notice factual antecedents leading to the filing of this appeal.
2. The respondent No. 2 filed a petition somewhere in the year 2007 before Custodian Evacuee's Property for restraining the appellants' predecessor-in-interest from raising any construction over the evacuee property owned by one Badar Din. The Custodian after putting the predecessor of the appellants to notice and holding an enquiry into the matter passed an order on 16.08.2007 directing that the property in question belongs to the evacuee Badar Din, which is situated at Ward No. 7, Basohli, and is in the possession of the Hari Krishan unauthorizedly, be notified and declared as an evacuee property under Section 6 of the Act. Thereupon, Hari Krishan assailed the order of the Custodian before the J&K Special Tribunal in a revision filed under Section 30-A of the Act. The Special Tribunal vide its judgment dated 27.10.2008 set aside the order of the Custodian on the ground that the property in question was part of family property of Hari Krishan, predecessor of the appellants herein, which devolved on him by way of a family settlement, which was evidenced by a deed duly registered and in the proceeding initiated by one Om Parkash against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants by way of a suit of possession, which travelled up to the High Court, it was never claimed by any party that the property was an evacuee property. The Special Tribunal also relied upon earlier orders of Deputy Custodian, Kathua and Tehsildar (Assistant Custodian), Basohli and concluded that there was ample evidence on record to show that the property in question did not belong to Badar Din. The Special Tribunal, accordingly, concluded that the order of the Custodian, impugned in the revision, was not supported by any evidence.
3. Being aggrieved, the Custodian challenged the order of The Special Tribunal by filing a writ petition, OWP No. 61/2009, inter alia, on the ground that the order passed by him was after appreciating the relevant material on record and after finding that the property in question belonged to one Badar Din, findings contained in the order were duly supported by evidence available in the shape of Photostat copy of the sale deed executed by one Bishamber Dass, duly registered by Sub-Registrar, Basohli, in which it was indicated that some landed property belonging to Badar Din was existing on the eastern side of the land of one Krishan Gopal and that there was correspondence between the Deputy Custodian, Kathua and Assistant Custodian Basohli, with regard to the initiation of proceeding against one Krishan Gopal substantiating the fact that the land in question was an evacuee property left behind by Badar Din. The writ petition was contested by the predecessor of the appellants. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 15.02.2011, impugned in this appeal, set aside the order of the Special Tribunal and upheld the order of the Custodian dated 16.08.2007, granting liberty to the appellants to approach the Custodian by way of application under Section 8 of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background the appellants have filed the instant appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellants on the ground that the Writ Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction could not have interfered with the finding of fact, arrived at by an inferior Court or Tribunal on the basis of appreciation of evidence, as has been held by the Apex Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Rad........