' The petitioner has filed this writ petition under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974, to call in question the order passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property on January 28, 1991, whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The dispute relates to a house situate in village Blaring, Tehsil, Bhimber, District Mirpur. According to the petitioner the said house was a `Gurdawarra' which stood constructed over the land measuring 9 Marlas and 7 Sarsais. After the migration of non-Muslim Evacuees, this house was used firstly as girl school and subsequently as boys school till 1982. In the year 1982, the school building was constructed by the Government. Respondent No,1 occupied this house without the permission of the Custodian or Rehabilitation Authorities. Later on he moved an application for its allotment on the ground that he being a local destitute and in possession of the house, was entitled to obtain its allotment. The learned Custodian declined the prayer of its allotment, however, e house was given to him on rent at the rate of Rs,150 per month.
3. On 18th of September, 1989, the petitioner moved an application before the Custodian praying therein that he was ready to purchase the house for Rs,1,50,000 or take the same on rent at the rate of Rs,150 p.m. This application was rejected by the learned Custodian, however, he increased the rent of respondent No,1 from Rs,50 to Rs,100 p.m. Vide impugned order.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant record of the writ petition with utmost care.
6. Choudhary Muhammad Sharif Tariq, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition raised the following grounds:-
(i) That the learned Custodian should have either accepted the offer of the petitioner whereby he had offered to purchase the said building for a sum of Rs,1,50,000 or pay its rent at the rate of Rs,150 p.m. As compared to respondent who was allowed to retain possession of the disputed property on rent at the rate of Rs,100 p.m.;
(ii) That the learned Custodian has passed an arbitrary and unguided order which is not supported by law,
(iii) That the order impugned in this writ petition was without jurisdiction. The learned Custodian had no jurisdiction to give any property on rent to any person.
7. As against this, it was argued by Raja Imdad All Khan, the learned counsel for respondent No,1 that the learned Custodian has passed the impugned order in accordance with law. The petitioner who was trying to purchase this property was not found entitled to whom the possession of the said house should have been given.
8. I have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner himself invoked the review jurisdiction of the Custodian and tried his best either to purchase the house in dispute for a sum of Rs,1,50,000 or to get the same on rent at the rate of Rs,150 p.m. When his review petition was rejected by the Custodian vide impugned order. He has raised the question of jurisdiction of the Custodian through the present writ petition. This petition in the circumstances is liable to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel by conduct as he himself invoked the review jurisdiction of the Custodian by filing review petition. Even otherwise, this ground is without any merit. Section 25(1) of Administration of Evacuee Property Act of 1957 reads as under:- "25. Powers and duties of the Custodian generally.--(1) The Custodian may take such measures as he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of securing, administering, preserving and managing any evacuee property or property of which possession has been taken by him and may, for any such purpose as aforesaid, do all acts and incur all expenses necessary or incidental thereto."
9. The Custodian as is apparent from the language used in the abovementioned provision of law, has the competence to take such measures as he deems necessary for the purposes of securing, administering, preserving and managing any evacuee property of which possession has been taken by him. Under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, all evacuee properties vest in the Custodian. Under subsection (m) of section 25 of the aforesaid Act, the learned Custodian has exclusive powers to determine the rent of an evacuee property to be recovered from a person found in unauthorized occupation of the same or he can create a charge on evacuee property as is laid down in subsection (p) of the Act. The learned Custodian, in the circumstances, had the jurisdiction to recover rent from respondent No,1 for the period, he was found in occupation of the house or to fix rent for future which respondent No,1 was required to pay in case he wanted to retain the possession of the disputed house with him.
10. In view of the above observations, the Custodian is the sole competent authority to take such measures as he considers expedient for administering, preserving and managing of any evacuee property. This Court, in its writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere into the orders passed lawfully by any authority having exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of any force, stands dismissed with costs.