1998 Supreme(J&K) 312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
A.M. Mir, J.
Ramzan Bhat - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K - Respondent
OWP No. 734/1985
Decided On : 21 September, 1998

Headnote:J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976--Section 21 read with Code of Civil Procedure--Order 22 Abatement of Revision :In the first instance I would like to place on record that ground No.6 was neither agitated before me during the - course of arguments nor was it pressed. Revisional power is only a supervisory power. This power can be exercised at any time and even suo moto. While deciding a revision the technicalities of civil law need not be followed biblically. Provisions of order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure will in the first instance not apply to revisions under the Act. Even if it would apply, the revision would not abate as the cause survives even after the death of Rehman Bhat and Rules 1 & 2 would save the matter from abatement. Even otherwise the writ petitioners have not taken any trouble to inform the Court as to on which date Rehman Bhat, who was a respondent before the Revenue Minister, had expired. So this point should not detain us. Suffice it to say that on this count Revenue Ministers decision does not suffer from any vice.

       (Para 8)

       (B) J&K Agrariar Reforms Act, 1976-Section 21 Limitation for Revision :The revisional powers of the Revenue Minister can be exercised at any time. There can be no limitation.

       (Para 9(c))

       (C) J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 -Sections 31,35 Compromise :It was the legal obligation of the Commissioner to first ascertain and certify that the compromise did not contravene any provision of the Act. Then and then only he could have himself acted upon the compromise or asked the Tehsildar to do it. The Commissioner has no doubt delegated his power to the Tehsildar. The Revenue Minister has questioned such delegation. In my opinion the Revenue Minister was correct. The Act does not provide for such delegation of appellate powers.

       (Para 11(b))

       (D) J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 -Section Effect of Civil Suit :The Revenue Minister is the last forum under the Act where the matter could be agitated through a revision petition. The powers of the Revenue Minister are statutory in nature. Filing of a suit by petitioners 2&3 on the basis of a right emanating out of proceedings before the Commissioner would, in no case debar the Revenue Minister from exercising his powers while deciding a revision. Thus the plea of disposal of the revision petition during the pendancy of civil suit being against law does not at all find favour with me and does not help the writ-petitioners.

       (Para 12(a))

       (E) Constitution of India -- Art 226 :- Scope pf Certiorari :. Tribunals are established with the purpose of providing a final forum for adjudication of a cause arising out of a judicial or quasi-judicial act. Tribunals have generally to deal with questions of law only. Therefore, the finding of Tribunals are the last and must ordinarily assume finality. However, in exercise of writ power vested in it by Art.226, a High Court may pass any order or direction, including one in the nature of certiorari but before issuing a writ of certiorari it must be satisfied that the findings violated a right, fundamental or legal.

       (Para 13(c)

       (F) Constitution of India -- Art 226 Scope of Certiorari :In the following cases a writ of certiorari can be passed :- Where the court/Tribunal or Authority has acted without jurisdiction;

       b) Where the Authority has acted in excess of its jurisdiction;

       c) Absence of jurisdiction may arise out of the nature of subject matter, absence of some preliminary proceedings, the infirmity in constitution of the forum or existance of a disability arising out of extrenious factors;

       d) Where the Authority has the jurisdiction, it acts in violation of rules of procedure laid down and where no procedure is laid down, where it violates rules of natural justice;

       c) Where the finding has been passed in clear ignorance of law;

       f) Where the judgement/finding is totally unwarranted and perverse and is not based on any material or evidence;

       g) Where the order/judgement suffers from an error apparent on face of the record.

       Yet there may be other cases where the judicial conscience of the Judge feels that manifest injustice has not caused.

       (Para 13 (I) (m))

       (G) J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 -Section 12 Authentication :The word authentication in Section 12 supra, is juxtaposed with the word registered. Therefore, like registration, authentication in terms of Section 12 of the Act is a formal act of authenticating authority, establishing the due execution of a document. In other words, before acting upon it, under Section 12, the document should have been authenticated.

       (Para 14 (g))

       (H) J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 Section 12 Estoppel :Compromise under Section 12 supra itself is to be hedged into some conditions precedent. In case the compromise is beyond the scope of law and goes against the terms and conditions laid down by the statute, party espacially the prospective owner cannot be precluded from challenging the compromise on basis of a promissory estopped. A compromise dehors the Act can well be challenged by any of the parties to the compromise and no rule of promissory estoppel will apply.

       (Para 15(f))