1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The main question to be determined in this case is whether the respondent No. 3 had the jurisdiction under the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 2007 to pass orders which resulted in the filing of the present petition? It is contended that" after the coming into force of the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as 2007 Act) to the extent of inconsistency, stood repealed and that no orders could have been passed in favour of respondents 4 to 10. Learned counsel for contesting respondents relying upon SRO 667 of 1973 dated: 27.l2.1973 have contended that the argument is misconceived and that respondent No. 3 was clothed with the powers to adjudicate upon the disputes raised before him.

2. To appreciate the rival contentions between the parties some of the facts necessary to be noticed in the case are: that one Glodhu was recorded owner of the land comprised in survey No: 46 measuring 7 kanals 11 marlas in village Chak Manga Rakwal, Tehsil Samba. A portion of the said land was taken over by the Central Public Works Department for the construction of Jammu Pathankote National Highway in 2005 (Bikrami). After the construction of the national highway, possession of 6 kanals 11 marlas of land is claimed to have been handed over to the father of the petitioners. As the land was allegedly unculturable, it is stated to have not been included in the claim preferred by father of the petitioners as the same was not covered by the definition of land under the 2007 Act. The position is stated to have continued upto Rabi 1972 whereafter entry in Khasra Girdawari to the extent of 3 kanals 3 marlas was shown to be in possession of the respondents and nature of the land was changed from "Ghair Mumkin Rohar" to "Mera Doyim" in possession of the tenants-at-will. The Petitioners claim to have approached the Addl. Tehsildar, Samba, in 1978 for deletion of the entry and maintaining the original nature of the land. It is contended that the Addl. Tehsildar, Samba, deleted the names of the contesting respondent as tenants and restored the position of the land as "Ghair Mumkin Rohar". The contesting respondents are alleged to have filed revision petition before the Director, Land Records, Jammu, who recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the case be got disposed of through Agrarian Reforms agency. The respondent not being satisfied with the judgment of the Financial Commissioner, filed an application before the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner for providing them appropriate relief, who, referred the matter to respondent No. 3, Asstt. Commissioner (General) Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Jammu, for immediate disposal under law. Respondent No.3, upon inquiry declared respondents 4 to 9 as owners of 5 kanals of land out of 6 kanals 11 marlas in khasra No. 46 of village Chak Manga Rakwal vide order dated: 11.6.1990. These rights were allegedly conferred under the provisions of the 2007 Act.

3. The contesting respondents in their objections have submitted that the petitioners themselves had admitted in their application dated: 5.5.1992 filed under Sec. 24 of the 2007 Act that the land in dispute was liable to be escheated to the State. It is alleged that father of the petitioners was a big landlord who had not included the land in dispute in his declaration filed under the provisions of the 2007 Act and the grandfather of the answering respondents, namely, Lachhu, being a tenant had become owner of the same by operation of land under the provisions of the 2007 Act. The father of the petitioners is, on the other hand alleged to have manipulated entries in his favour with the connivance of the revenue authorities. The facts regarding the existence of the entries in the revenue record have vehemently been contested by the parties. It is also submitted that the land was never a ˜Ghair Mumkin Rohar™ but was always a culturable land an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document