Back
2012 Supreme(J&K) 753
J&K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL AT JAMMU
Sanjay Gupta, J.
Shiv Ram & Anr. -Appellant
Versus
Mir Chand (Dead) & Ors. -Resopndent
STJ-78-2004 In the Matter of: Petition for revision against the order dated 21-5-2004 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner with the powers of Commissioner Agrarian Udhampur
Decided On : 03-05-2012
The crucial entry in the cultivating column of girdawari of 1971 is essential for obtaining benefits under the Agrarian Reforms Act, and compliance with the rules for mutation attestation is crucial.
Headnote:
Agrarian Reforms Act - Land Mutation - Section 4, Section 8 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their appeal against the mutation orders related to land possession. They claimed denial of right to be heard and argued that the court failed to apply relevant sections of the Agrarian Reforms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents were in cultivating possession of the land in question in Kharif 1971, and upheld the lower courts' findings. The petitioners' appeals were dismissed, and the revision petition was also dismissed.
Issues: The issues included denial of right to be heard, application of Agrarian Reforms Act sections, and the correctness of mutation orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of cultivating possession in Kharif 1971 and the compliance with the rules for mutation attestation. It also noted the deliberate omission of a party and the lack of rebuttal to the opposing affidavit.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the file was sent back to the trial court.
2. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, they have been denied of right being of heard. In the memo of the petition, it has further been stated that, court below has not decided the question as to how entry of possession of petitioners was changed in Rabi 1976 in favour of deceased Mir Chand and Shanker. That Court below failed to apply section 13 (2) Agrarian Reforms Act,which prohibits the tenancy after 1-5-1973. That father of petitioners late Suneetu as well as Mst Kesri were occupancy tenant of land for the year Rabi 1970 and Kharif 1971, after the death of their father, petitioners became the occupancy tenant along with Mst Kesri,that appellate court failed to apply the law properly,because respondent Shanker was entered in to the possession as tenant of Mst Kesri for the first time in Rabi 1976, which is against mandatory of section 13(2). That Mst Kesri was a old lady and it was only the petitioner alone, who was cultivating the entire land. Since Kesri was issue less, the whole land was to devolve upon petitioner after her death. That entry in Rabi 1976 was wrong and does not confer any right. That Respondents who are related to Mst Kesri through her sister, managed the entry in their favour. That affidavit of Mst Kesri is not part of the record.
3. I have heard both the counsels at length and perused the record. I have also gone through relevant law dealing the matter in controversy.
4. From the perusal of record, it appears that petitioners herein,filed two appeals one against order dated 5-2-1984 of mutation no. 1329 attested Under Section 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act and order dated 17-2-1986 of mutation no. 1422 attested Under Section 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act, with regard to land measuring 7 K -14 M under Kh. No. 591, 5 K-17 M under Kh. 593 and 19 K -- 8- M under Kh. 817,situated in village Barola Udhampur before Additional Deputy Commissioner Udhampur on 21-07-1989. It was mentioned in the appeal that, both the mutations have wrongly been attested. Appellate court on 21-05-04 dismissed both the appeals by way of common order.
5. Section 21(2) of A. R. Act deals with power of this Court regarding the revision. It reads as under:-
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
6. 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 criteria, because final should also involve question of law or of public interest.
7. 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 o
