SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(J&K) 390

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Sunil Hali, J.
Tara Chand & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. -Resopndent
OWP No. 6-2002
Decided On : 08-07-2010

Advocates Appeared:
D.K. Khajuria, R.S. Thakur.

The central legal point established in the judgment is that corrections in the record of rights can only be made by following the prescribed procedure under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act.

Headnote:

Protected Tenants - Land Tenancy - Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980, Section 15(A) - Section 31 and 32 of Land Revenue Act - The court discussed the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980, particularly Section 15(A) and the procedure for questioning entries in the record of rights under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act. The court highlighted that entries in the record of rights are presumed to be true until proven otherwise and emphasized the requirement to file a suit before the Collector for correction of the record within a specified period.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners claimed to be protected tenants of certain land. A dispute arose when the respondent-Dharamarth Trust contested their status as protected tenants and sought correction of the entries in the revenue record.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the change made in the revenue record through Fardpartal was not in accordance with the law and emphasized that corrections in the record of rights can only be made by following the procedure outlined in Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act.

Issues: The main issue was the validity of the entries in the revenue record regarding the petitioners' status as protected tenants and the procedure for challenging these entries.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents' failure to follow the procedure outlined in Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act rendered the change in the revenue record invalid and did not affect the petitioners' rights as protected tenants.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order passed by the Financial Commissioner was set aside.

1. The petitioners claim to be protected tenants of land falling under survey Nos. 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 and 88, situated at village Arazi Samba, Tehsil Samba. In exercise of the powers vested under Sub Section(2) of the Section 15(A) of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980, the Government confirmed the title of protected tenancy on all the tenants except occupancy and such fixed term tenants as hold Maliari or vegetable growing land. Every such protected tenant was recorded by adding the words "Mazaria Muhafiz" against his name. Subsequently, Government passed a General Order No. LCB-8/C of 1957 dated 15.11.1957, whereby the persons who were in cultivating occupation of the land held by them on 9.12.1955, were liable to be confirmed the status of protected tenants. In pursuance to this, petitioners’ names were recorded in the record of rights of 1959-60.

2. A dispute was raised by the respondent-Dharamarth Trust in this behalf by stating that petitioner no. 1 was the servant of the Trust and he managed to get his and his brothers names recorded as protected tenants. On coming to know that petitioners were recorded as protected tenants, the respondent-Dharamerth Trust applied for correction of the entries in the relevant revenue record, on the basis of which, Tehsildar, Samba vide his order dated 20.10.1972 passed on Fardpartal ordered that petitioners be entered as "Gair Maurousi Billa Lagan bewaja lailmi Malikan" instead of "Gair Maurousi Muzarin Mahfooz". This order of the Tehsildar has not been challenged by the petitioners. Subsequently, Tehsildar, Samba changed this entry vide his order passed on Mutation No. 191 dated 17.11.1981 and recorded the petitioners as protected tenants.

3. A review was preferred against the order passed by the Tehsildar, Samba on Mutation No. 191 dated 17.11.1981. The said order was revised vide order dated 20.6.1984, whereby petitioners were ordered to be entered as protected tenants on payment of rent @ = of the produce and the petitioner was recorded as paid servant of the Trust.

4. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred by the respondent-Dharamerth Trust before the Director, Land Record with powers of Divisional Commissioner, who vide its order dated 31.7.1986 set aside the entries and held that the change of entries in favour of the petitioners is fishy and has been manipulated by petitioner no. 1 without the knowledge and consent of the Trust.

5. A reference was accordingly made to the Financial Commissioner, Jammu, who while disagreeing with the reference accepted the same to the extent that the entries made in the revenue record in favour of the petitioners, which are not in consonance with the entries made in Jamabandi of 1959-60 shall stand set aside and directed that the revenue record be prepared in terms of the entries contained in Jamabandi of 1959-60.

6. Feeling aggrieved of the above said order, the respondent-Dharamerth Trust filed a writ petition bearing no. OWP No. 826/1995 before this court. This court vide its order dated 14.12.1999 set aside the order of Financial Commissioner and remanded the case back to him for fresh orders. Accordingly, the learned Financial Commissioner accepted the recommendations made by the Director, Land Records and set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar, Samba on mutation no. 191. It is, in these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

7. Grievance set out by the petitioners in this writ petition is that they have been recorded as protected tenants in Jamabandi of 1959-60 and became beneficiary of the Government Order No. LCB-8/C of 1957 dated 15.11.1957, whereby they were declared as protected tenants. They were held to be in cultivating occupation of the land held by them on 9 December, 1955 and on the basis of which entries were recorded in their favour in the revenue record and the same cannot be changed by effecting correction in the mutation.

8. On the other hand, stand of the respondents is that










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top