Back
2012 Supreme(J&K) 791
J&K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL AT JAMMU
Sanjay Gupta, J.
Prem Nath -Appellant
Versus
Kulbir Singh & Ors. -Resopndent
STJ-317-2011 In the matter of; Revision in terms of section 21 (2) of ARA Act 1976 against an order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner with powers of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Udhampur dated 27.10.2010
Decided On : 18-07-2012
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a revision petition to be maintainable, the impugned order must be a final order and involve a question of law or public interest. Additionally, the court highlighted the importance of following the procedures and mandates provided in the Agrarian Reforms Act and its related rules and standing orders.
Headnote:
Agrarian Reforms Act - Land Mutation - Sections 4, 8 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, particularly sections 4 and 8, which deal with the rights of tenants and prospective owners. The court highlighted the procedures and mandates for conferring rights under these sections, emphasizing the importance of following the Agrarian Reforms Rules of 1977 and standing orders, particularly standing order no. 23-A. The court also emphasized the requirement for mutations to be attested in the presence of all parties and the violation of standing order no. 23-A in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order allowing appeals against land mutations, claiming peaceful possession and rights under the Agrarian Reforms Act. The court found that the mutations were not attested in the presence of all parties and violated standing order no. 23-A, leading to irregularities in the court below's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that the impugned order was not a final order and did not involve a question of law or public interest. The court emphasized that the matter was still alive, and any aggrieved party had the remedy to approach a higher forum.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the mutations, the petitioner's peaceful possession, and the irregularities in the court below's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the impugned order was not a final order and did not involve a question of law or public interest. The court also emphasized that the matter was still alive, and any aggrieved party had the remedy to approach a higher forum.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the record of the court below was sent back. The court emphasized the need for the inquiry to be concluded without delay.
2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that he is in peaceful cultivation possession of land under survey no. 525 min situated at Kotli Tehsil Udhampur. That prior to his coming in possession the land was being cultivated by his father Kirpu. That his father never abandoned possession of said land nor has surrendered the possession in favour of anybody. That after operation of Agrarian Reforms Act, land presumable nor under the personal cultivation of its owner. That since kirpu father of petitioner was a tenant in 1971, so he was having right of prospective ownership and thereafter full fledged ownership rights in terms of section 4 and section 8 of Agrarian Reform Act. That respondents have time and again involved the petitioner in a frivolous litigation and got the mutations attested in his favour cancelled. That matter was remanded to the Court of first instance Tehsildar for passing fresh order. That on said remand order enquiry was conducted and petitioner withstood the test of being tenant in Kharief 1971. That respondents did not rest, but again took the option of challenging the order in second round of litigation on flimsy ground. Again order has been set aside and case has been remanded for de novo inquiry.
That order of court below is full of irregularities and is impropriate.
Heard both the counsels at length and perused the record and the order impugned. From the records it appears that respondent no. 1 and predecessor of respondent no. 2 to 6 namely Gandrab Singh filed an appeal against petitioner and one Gurbachan Singh predecessor of respondent 7 to 11 with respect to mutation no. 681 attested on 14.1.1985 u/s 4 of Agr. Reforms Act in favour of Kirpu father of respondent therein, with regard to land measuring 21 kanals under survey no, 525 situated at Kotali udhampur..
3. Second appeal was filed by respondents 1 to 6 herein against the mutation no.888 dated 22.11.1997 attested U/S 8 of Agr. Reform, Act in favour of Prem nath.
4. The Court below by way of common has order set aside both the mutation and has remanded the case back to Tehsildar for de novo inquiry. The Court below remanded the case to Tehsildar on the grounds that mutations were not attested in presence of both the parties and standing order 23-A has been violated.
5. Agrarian Reforms Act is meant for providing land of landlord to tiller, who was cultivating the land in Kharif 1971. A tenant who was in cultivating possession of land and was paying rent to landlord would get benefit of section 4 and 8 of act. As per section 4 of Act rights, title and interest of land lord extinguishes to State, if he was not in cultivating possession of land in Kharif 1971. This follows, by conferring right as prospective owner on tenants, who were in cultivating possession of land in girdawari of Kharif 1971. In term of section 7 of act an owner of land can resume it for bonafide personal cultivation as per procedure laid in section. If land is not resumed then section 8 of act comes into operation. As per section 8 of act owner ship right is conferred upon prospective owner declared under section 4 of act.
6. For conferring rights under section 4 and 8 of agrarian reform on tiller, certain procedure and mandates have been provided, which every mutating officer has to follow in letter and spirit. Agrarian reforms Rules of 1977 have been framed in term of section 40 of act for carrying out purpose of act. Various statutory orders have been issued by competent authorities with this respec
