SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(J&K) 41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
S. Murtaza Fazl Ali,Syed Wasi-ud-Din, JJ.
Jan Mohd. - Appellant
Versus
Revenue Minister, J&K & Ors. - Respondent
LPA No. 19/1972
Decided On : 23 May, 1974

Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: S.P. Gupta
Advocate For Appellant: Ch. Inder Dass
Advocate For Respondent:Additional Advocate General
Advocate For Respondent: T.S.Thakur

The Revenue Minister cannot interfere with the order of the Financial Commissioner under Section 30(6) of the Act unless the matter involves a substantial question of law or a question of public interest.

Headnote:

JAMMU AND KASHMIR BIG LANDED ESTATES ABOLITION ACT, 1957 - SECTION 30(6) - REVISION - SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW OR PUBLIC INTEREST - LIMITATION - JURISDICTION OF REVENUE MINISTER.

Fact of the Case:

Appellant, a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Revenue Minister, respondent No. 1, who had set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner and restored the mutation order declaring the land in dispute as escheated to the State. The appellant claimed that he was the son of a tiller who had been forced to leave the land due to the 1947 riots and that he was entitled to ownership rights over the land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Revenue Minister had erred in holding that the matter involved a substantial question of law or a question of public interest, as the Act did not provide any period of limitation for revision applications and the provisions of the Limitation Act were not attracted. The court also held that the Revenue Minister had exceeded his jurisdiction by laying down a one-year limitation period for such applications.

Issues: 1. Whether the Revenue Minister had jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Financial Commissioner under Section 30(6) of the Act. 2. Whether the matter involved a substantial question of law or a question of public interest. 3. Whether the Revenue Minister could lay down a limitation period for revision applications.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Revenue Minister had the power to interfere with the order of the Financial Commissioner under Section 30(6) of the Act, but only if the matter involved a substantial question of law or a question of public interest. 2. The court held that the matter did not involve a substantial question of law or a question of public interest, as the Act did not provide any period of limitation for revision applications and the provisions of the Limitation Act were not attracted. 3. The court held that the Revenue Minister could not lay down a limitation period for revision applications, as this was a matter for the legislature to decide.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the Revenue Minister.

Per Syed Wasi-ud-Din J.

This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Jaswant Singh J.) dated Dec. 6, 1971 by which the writ petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed. The short facts which led to the filing of the aforesaid writ petition briefly stated are as follows : -

2. The appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Revenue Minister respondent No. 1 dated 23-4-71. The case of the appellant is that he is a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and is a Gojar by caste and belongs to village Chhani Raman, Tehsil Jammu. On account of the unfortunate riots which took place in Samvat 2004 the petitioner along with other Muslims of the village were forced to leave their homes and had to run to Pakistan to save their skins. A piece of land measuring 118 kanals 3 marlas comprised of Survey Plot No. 1, 34 kanals Survey Plot No. 17, 37 kanals and 11 marlas and Survey No. 18 46 kanals and 12 marlas situate in Chhani Raman, Tehsil Jammu belonged to Kapoor Singh and others. They were big landlords and came within the purview of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 2007, Act No. XVII of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act™). These aforesaid persons did not select this piece of land in their claim as required by the provisions of the Act. One Kanshi Ram son of Totaram was an occupancy tenant under the aforesaid proprietors but he also being a big landlord did not get any right in respect of this land. The aforesaid land was being cultivated by Nasher Din, who continued tilling the land till 2004 Samvat when on account of the circumstances beyond his control he was forced to leave the State. The appellant Jan Mohammad is the son of the aforesaid Nasher Din, here was a mutation case No. 121 and mutation was sanctioned in favour of the State who is respondent No. 2, and proprietary rights were conferred on the State but all these proceedings were ex parte inasmuch as no notice was served on Nasher Din or the appellant and it was without their knowledge. The appellant came to know of his mutation in August 1968 and he then filed a revision application before the Commissioner Jammu who by his order dated 19-12-1968 rejected the same, holding that the revision of the appellant was barred by time. He also held that the appellant came back from Pakistan in 2007 Samvat and at the time of attestation of mutation the land was in possession of the Remount Department and when the petitioner resettled in his Village in 2007 Samvat it was obligatory on his part to make enquiries about the said land and there would have been no difficulty in obtaining possession of the land if he was a bona fide tiller of the land and the fact that he did not do so for a period of 18 years clearly showed that he was not a bona fide tenant i.e. tiller of the land. The appellant then moved the Financial Commissioner in revision who by his order dated 8-7-1969 accepted the revision application holding that the law of limitation does not apply to applications in revision under Sec. 30 of the Act. He also further held that the Revenue Officers should have mutated the property in the name of Nasher Din as an owner unless he was found not to be a permanent resident and thereafter it would have been declared as an evacuee property but the omission of any reference to Nasher Din in the proceedings indicates to show that the presumption of Nasher Din having been killed m the disturbances of 1947 or that he had gone to Pakistan was Present in the mind of the mutating officer and that was the reason why he did not consider it worthwhile to mention him in the mutation order. The Financial Commissioner also observed that it was the function of all officers superior to Special Tehsildars to move for cancellation of this order in revision on the ground that the land could not have been declared escheated to the Stat

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top