Back
2012 Supreme(J&K) 804
J&K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL AT JAMMU
Sanjay Gupta, J.
Gh. Mohd. Naik -Appellant
Versus
Abdoo Malik (Dead) & Ors. -Resopndent
STJ-516-09
Decided On : 06-08-2012
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Agrarian Reforms Act, specifically regarding the rights of tenants, prospective owners, and the timeliness of appeals.
Headnote:
Agrarian Reforms Act - Mutation Dispute - Section 4, Section 8, Section 13(2) - The court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred and the absence of the appellant's name in the cultivation column of the land in Kharief 1971.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an appeal against a mutation attested in favor of the respondents, claiming continuous possession of the land. The court below dismissed the appeal, citing the respondents' status as protected tenants and the absence of the appellant's name in the cultivation column of the land in Kharief 1971.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal was time-barred and that the appellant's name did not exist in the cultivation column of the land in Kharief 1971. It also noted that the appellant did not prove cultivation on behalf of the ex-owners or payment of rent.
Issues: The issues revolved around the possession of the land, the status of the parties as tenants or prospective owners, and the timeliness of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, particularly Sections 4, 8, and 13(2), to determine the rights of the parties and the timeliness of the appeal.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as the court found no legal infirmities in the order under challenge, and the possession of the land was to be restored to the respondents.
2. Petitioner has stated in the memo of revision petition that, land measuring 14 kanals 04 marlas under khasra no. 613, 7 kanals 4 marlas under khasra no. 1019/622, land measuring 21 kanals 8 marlas under khasra no; 621 and land measuring 5 marlas under khasra no. 621, total measuring 21 kanals 13 marlas is in occupation and possession of the petitioner for last more than 40 years. That petitioner is tenant over the land and as per Agr. Ref. Act 1976, proprietary right of said land were required to be conferred upon him by paying levy to the ex owner of said land. That predecessor in interest of respondents, were never in actual physical possession of said land in Kharief 1971. That to the ignorance of the petitioner and because of cleverness of respondents, a wrong and against the position on spot, girdawri entry exists on the name of respondents. That he came to know about this fact in 1987. That respondents have wrongly claimed to be the tenants over the land and got attested mutation u/s 4 of the Arg. Ref. Act.
3. That this mutation was kept secret and he came to know only in Feb, 2001. That attesting Officer did not call the interest persons at the time of attestation of mutation. That mutation attested was a disputed and for this purpose procedure has been given in rule 4 of agrarian reform rule, which has not been followed.
4. Heard both counsel at length and gone through relevant law on subject.
5. Brief facts emerging from the records are that, petitioner herein filed an appeal against mutation no. 695 attested by Naib Tehsildar on 5.1.1986 u/s 4 of Agr. Ref Act in favour of respondents. This appeal was filed on the grounds that appellant is in continuous possession of land and as such he was to be declared as prospective owner of the land instead of the respondents. That appellant came to know about this state of affairs on 16.2.2001, through respondent no. 2 who declined to pay levy. That he applied for the copy and thereafter has filed the appeal. Along with appeal and application u/s 5 of limitation Act was also filed. Court below after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal on 2.2.2008.The concluding para of order reads as under;
"I have gone through the records available on the file and heard the counsels for both the parties. It reveals that respondents are recorded as protected tenants prior to Kharief 1977, accordingly the mutation has been attested in their favour u/s 4 of Agr. Reforms Act. The above mentioned tenants were paying rent at the rate of half of the produce to the ex-owners. The appellant did not prove that on whose behalf he was cultivating the land and what rent he was paying to the ex-owners. Whereas in the Kharief 1987 the entry has been made in favour of the appellant on behalf of the respondent Abdoo and Mst. Jana prospective owner. The Patwari was called and perused the record of above mentioned land, wherein it was found that the appellant did not figure and where in the revenue record, but entries in his favour have been made without any basis in Kharief 1987 and Kharief 1990. The appellant did not claimed/ applied for correction of girdawri of revenue records prior to 1987, but filed the present appeal in 2001 having knowledge of attestation of mutation in the year 1987, when he managed to make the entries from the patwari halaqa in the revenue records. It seems that the story made in the memo of appeal is not based on facts. When
