Back
2012 Supreme(J&K) 764
J&K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL AT JAMMU
Sanjay Gupta, J.
Premu -Appellant
Versus
Billu & Anr. -Resopndent
STJ-433-07 In the Matter of: Revision against the order no. 231 of Addl. Dy. Commissioner with powers of Commissioner Agr. Reforms Udhampur passed on 18,10.2007
Decided On : 31-05-2012
Amrit Sarin, Nemo.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revisional jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal is exercisable to examine matters involving questions of law or public importance after a final order is passed by the appellate authority. The court emphasized that a remand order passed after appreciating the facts of the case and the applicable law is considered an interlocutory order and is not revisable unless it lacks inherent jurisdiction or is passed against well-settled legal principles.
Headnote:
remand - Land Dispute - Special Tribunal Rules, Section 21(2) of Agrarian Reform Act 1976 - The court discussed the provisions of Special Tribunal Rules and Section 21(2) of the Agrarian Reform Act 1976. It emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal is exercisable to examine matters involving questions of law or public importance after a final order is passed by the appellate authority. The court highlighted that a remand order passed after appreciating the facts of the case and the applicable law is considered an interlocutory order and is not revisable unless it lacks inherent jurisdiction or is passed against well-settled legal principles. The court also pointed out that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any question of law or public importance involved in the case and that the finding of the court below was based on facts and could not be disturbed in revision unless it was perverse in nature.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who is the brother of the respondents, is in possession of land under mutation no. 1594. The respondents challenged the mutation, leading to a series of appeals and remands. The court below remanded the case to the Tehsildar for a fresh inquiry in the presence of the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revision petition was not maintainable as it failed to demonstrate any question of law or public importance involved in the case. It emphasized that the finding of the court below was based on facts and could not be disturbed in revision unless it was perverse in nature. The court dismissed the revision petition and sent the file of the court below back along with a copy of the order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the maintainability of the revision petition, the interpretation of the Special Tribunal Rules, and the applicability of Section 21(2) of the Agrarian Reform Act 1976. The court also addressed the lack of a certified copy of the impugned order with the revision petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that the revisional jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal is exercisable to examine matters involving questions of law or public importance after a final order is passed by the appellate authority. It emphasized that a remand order passed after appreciating the facts of the case and the applicable law is considered an interlocutory order and is not revisable unless it lacks inherent jurisdiction or is passed against well-settled legal principles.
Final Decision: The revision petition was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed. The file of the court below was sent back along with a copy of the order, and the file of the court was to be consigned to record after due compilation.
2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, he is brother of respondents and is in possession of land measuring 22 kanals under khasra no. 56, 57 and 58 at village Madha Tehsil Chenani District Udhampur. That a mutation no. 1594 has already been attested in his favour 0n 12.12.2003. That respondent no. 1 unnecessarily and without any basis has dragged the petitioner in a false litigation by filing appeal before Agrarian reform commissioner and on this Tehsildar was directed to hold enquiry with regard to possession and cultivation of the petitioner. Tehsildar during enquiry recorded statements of respondents and attested the mutation no. 1594 on 12.12.2003 in presence of other witnesses. Respondent no; 1 again filed appeal and 25.3.2004 and it was decided on 18.10.2007.
3. The Court below has again remanded the case to Tehsildar Chenani for fresh enquiry in presence of parties.
4. Petitioner has stated in revision that, order of Court below is not based on facts. That Court below has committed a great irregularity. That remand after remand in view of case is not sustainable.
5. I have heard counsel for petitioner at length and also perused the records.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has elaborated all the grounds taken in revision petition and has categorically argued that, in present case remand was no required.
7. Brief facts as are evident from record, are that petitioner and respondents are brothers. A Sehat indraj mutation no. 1594 dt. on 12. 12. 2003 was attested in favour of petitioner with regard to land measuring 22 kanals under khasra no. 56,57 and 58 of village Madha tehsil chenani on remand order passed by ADD. Deputy commissioner Udhampur. Billu,brother of petitioner challenged the same before Court below on 25.3.2004, in appeal. Court below accepted the appeal and remanded the case to Tehsildar on the ground that, Tehsildar has not visited on spot for ascertaining spot position and calling any factual report from patwari and girdawari.
8. I have gone through revision petition; it is not accompanied with certified copy.
9. Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules reads as under:-
Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules--Every memorandum of petition shall be in triplicate and shall be accompanied by two copies (at least one of which shall be certified copy) of the order appealed against.
A plain reading of Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules, it is evident that, every petition should be accompanied with one certified copy of order impugned, which has not been done in the present case.
10. However, Rule 12 gives discretion to Tribunal to accept a petition which is not accompanied by any or all documents referred in Rule-11. In the present case this court has not dispensed with for annexing certified copy at the time of filling of revision petition, as no application was filled. So this revision is not maintainable on this point.
11. Next, this tribunal constituted under special tribunal act, 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.
12. Bare peru
