Back
J&K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL AT
Sanjay Gupta, J.
Ashwani Kumar Nagpal -Appellant
Versus
Sham Lal & Ors. -Resopndent
STJ-670-2011
Decided On : 06-07-2012
Revision - Agrarian Reform Act - The court dismissed the revision petition challenging an order for maintaining status quo and restraining the petitioner from a land dispute, holding that the order was an interlocutory order and not a final order, and therefore not amenable to revision. The court also noted that the matter was already before the High Court, and thus the subordinate court was barred from passing any order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order directing to maintain status quo and restraining the petitioner in a land dispute. The petitioner claimed ownership of the land, while the respondent had filed an appeal against the mutation of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order in question was an interlocutory order and not a final order, and therefore not subject to revision. The court also noted that the matter was already before the High Court, and thus the subordinate court was barred from passing any order.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the order for maintaining status quo and restraining the petitioner, the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the revision petition, and the impact of the matter being already before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order in question was an interlocutory order and not a final order, and therefore not subject to revision. The court also noted that the matter was already before the High Court, and thus the subordinate court was barred from passing any order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that it was not maintainable, and sent the record of the court below back along with the order.
2. Petitioner has stated in his revision petition that, he is owner in possession of land measuring 15 kanals 11 marklas under Kh. No. 164, situated at village Ratnal tehsil Bishnah. That petitioner was firstly declared as prospective owner of land in term of mutation no. 745 attested on 10.12.88 u/s 4 of Agr.Ref.Act. That by virtue of mutation no. 745/1 dt. 21.4.89 attested u/s 8 of Agrarian Reform Act; ownership right was conferred upon him. That respondent no. 1 filed appeal before Court below against mutation. Appeal was dismissed due non-prosecution on 23.7.2011. That respondent no. 1 moved an application for restoration of appeal much after period of limitation before Court below. That Court below issued notice and next date was fixed on 17.11.2011.
3. That on 15.10.2011 court below passed an order, whereby both retraining order as well as staus quo order with regard to land under dispute has been passed in a single order at his back. That this Order is bad in the eyes of law because as no opportunity of being heard has been given to him.
4. I have heard both counsels at length. Counsel for petitioner has reiterated all grounds taken in revision petition during his arguments. Whereas counsel for respondent no. 1 has stated that, land under dispute is sub judice before honorable High court J&K in OWP No. 468/2012, CMP No.644/2012 filled by petitioner herein and order impugned herein is interim order against, which revision is not maintainable.
5. I have given thoughtful consideration to whole aspects of matter. Special Tribunal has been constituted by virtue of special Tribunal Act 1986. In term of section 3 of act, tribunal has been empowered to hear appeals, revision and review, which previously lies to Minister or Govt. under any law made by state legislature.
6. In this way, this tribunal derives power of revision under section 21(2) of agrarian reform act 1976.
It reads as under:-
(1) Any person aggrieved by a final order of a Collector or a Revenue Officer of a class lower than that of a Collector may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner having jurisdiction in the area to which the appeal relates.
(2) The Revenue Minister may at any time call for the record of any case in which a Tehsildar or an Assistant Commissioner has passed orders in respect of evacuees land or State land or of any case in which Commissioner has passed final order and if he finds that a question of law or public interest is involved in the case, he may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit;
Provided that no order shall be passed against any party without affording that party an opportunity of being heard.
7. Bare perusal of this section, it is evident that revision lies only against the final order passed by the court below (Commissioner). This is not a single decisive factor, because final order should also involve question of law or of public interest for determination.
8. Question of law means application or interpretation of legal principle or statues. It involves the interpretation of principle that are potentially applicable to other case. It relates to determination of what is law, how it is applied to facts of case. It is purely legal in contention.
9. From the perusal of records of court, it appears that on15.10.2011, Court below passed following orders on the application filed by the respondent no. 1:
In the matter of Stay:
Application for staying the operation of mutation impugned in the appeal and restraining the respondent no. 1 herein from alienating the land and or heating the charge over the property in any manners whatsoever.
ORDER
10. Presented by Counsel for applicant, register issue notice for obj
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
