' RAM MUHAMMAD KHURSHID KHAN, C. J.-The appellant Nek Muhammad and Roda, respondent herein, are real brothers.
2. The dispute relates to the allotment of evacuee land. Nek Muhammad appellant has moved this appeal against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 13th of November, 1983. His grievance is that out of the evacuee land, allotted to him on 19-8-1955, one- third has illegally been cancelled from his name and allotted to Roda respondent by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Poonch, vide order, dated 11-4-1974. This illegal allotment order, his case is, was erroneously maintained in appeal moved by him by the Rehabilitation Commissioner as well as by the Custodian before whom he moved a. Revision to assail the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner.
3. The orders made by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (allotment order), Rehabilitation Commissioner (order made an appeal against the order of Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner) and the learned Custodian in revision (against the order of Rehabilitation Commissioner), the appellant claims, being violative of the Rehabilitation laws and rules were sought to be avoided by way of a civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Abbaspur ; but the High. Court fell in error to vacate the order of the learned Sub-Judge, dated 31-3-1982 whereby the learned Judge disallowed the objection raised by the respondent that civil Court is incompetent to hear the suit.
4. To counter the claim put forth by the appellant an objection was taken by the respondent that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the controversial issue as it has been finally clinched by the competent authorities, i. e , Rehabilitation authorities and the jurisdiction of the civil Court is totally barred to hear such like matters.
5. The learned Sub-Judge, vide order, dated 31-3-1982, as said earlier, disollowed the objection and proceeded to hear the case. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court, Mr. Justice Abdul Majeed Mallick, however felt advised to vacate the order referred to above in exercise of his revisional powers.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Roda respondent who is present in person.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits :-
(a) that the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner cancelling the allotment of the appellant was derogatory of the relevant Rehabilitation laws and rules. To elaborate his case he argues that the allotment made in favour of the appellant in the year 1955 had attained finality and it could not be disturbed by the Rehabilitation Authorities or the Custodian. As the vacation of the order of his allotment was ab initio void and mala fide, the civil Court has jurisdiction to take stock of the order ;
(b) that Mr. Justice Abdul Majeed Mallick, the learned Chief Justice of the High Court, whose two orders in the matter as Custodian (one made while disposing of the revision petition and second in the review petition) have also been questioned before the civil Court the propriety demanded that the learned Chief Justice should have refrained from associating himself as a Judge for the disposal of the case. The judgment, the learned counsel maintains, for this solitary reason is to be vacated.
8. We have given our dispassionate thought to the arguments advanced at the bar and are of the view that the second limb of the argument with regard to the competency of Mr. Justice Abdul Majeed Mallick, the learned Chief Justice of the High Court, carries weight and is to be accepted for the reason to follow.
9. The concept of natural justice is :-
(i) that no person can be a Judge in his own cause ; and
(ii) that no one shall be condemned unheard.
' Since their inception, in the clear cut form, these rules/doctrines are indispensable to the administration of justice in the Court of law. We also observe that they are even now slowly and slowly extended to the Tribunals as well as Administrative Acts in so far as the nature of the case admits. "It becomes necessary to do so in view of the maxim that all powers are to be exercised fairly both in appearance and reality".
10. There are volumes of decisions in which these rules of natural justice have been applied by judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies while dealing wan the rights of persons. The rule or principle tha no man shall be a Judge in his own cause needs all respect and recognition. A person should not sit as a Judge in a cause in which there can be tra of even remotest possibility of tas Judge's interest or bias in respect of the matter before him, if a Judge can be placed in such a situation it will disqualify him to hear the matter. Lush, J. In Sergeant v. Dale ((1877) 2, Q.B.D. 558, 567), said :- "If he has any legal interest in the decision of the question one way he is disqualified no matter how small the interest may be."
11. In the instant case the decision made by Mr. Justice Abdul I Majeed Mallick, therefore, when other Judges of the High Court are available to decide the matter, may look entirely outside the principle that justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done. This golden principle is well-recognized in all the judicial systems of the countries and is to be respected.
12. The question, therefore, as to whether the decision made by Mr. Justice Abdul Majeed Mallick, the learned Chief Justice, had in face occasioned failure of justice can hardly arise for consideration. We are alive that the question now agitated was not before the Custodian, nevertheles the learned Custodian's orders were impugned before the Sub-Judge an the appellant whose case had already been decided against him by the Custodian on different grounds may entertain the apprehension that Mr. Justice Abdul Majeed Mallick might have decided the case against him C influenced by his earlier judgments which were passed by him in the capacity of tie Custodian. This belief may be unfounded but it may call for criticism We say so because Nek Muhammad, appellant, and as a matte of fact in such a situation anybody would fell that a Judge had chosen to sit on his own judgment which is not desirable. In this view of the matter in this case the principle that 'justice should not only be done but should mainfestly be seen to be done' may appear to have been impaired and this fact adversely affects the legality of the report under appeal.
13. Apart from the above all the evacuee land under the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act vests in the Custodian and a Judge, who also performs the functions of the Custodian stands incapacitated to hear a case in which the evacuee property is the subject of litigation. In such a case, the Custodian is in fact an interested party. How a party can be a Judge of his own cause ?
14. In the result without casting any aspersion on the honesty and integrity of Mr. Justice Abdul Majeed Mallick and while taking in consideration the norms of justice which are to be followed in the even administration of justice we feel perusaded to hold that the impugned judgment for the abovestated reasons stands vitiated.
15. We would, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, dated 13-11- 1983 and remand the case back to the High Court with the direction that the appeal may be decided afresh by any of the remaining Judges of the High Court.