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

2014 Supreme(J&K) 163

J&K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL AT SRINAGAR
Zubair Ahmad Raza, J.
Haji Sonaullah Rather -Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Yousuf Wani & Ors. -Resopndent
File No. STS-2423-08
Decided On : 28-03-2014

The duty to give reasons for decisions and the finality of orders.

Headnote:

Agrarian Reforms Act - Land Dispute - Section 4, 8 - Summary of Acts and Sections

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner possessed land and obtained mutations under sections 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. Respondents encroached on the land, leading to a legal battle. The Agrarian Commissioner allowed the application for condonation of delay, which was challenged by the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Agrarian Commissioner did not consider objections and did not exercise discretion according to judicial principles. The court also discussed the jurisdiction to condone delay and the finality of the order.

Issues: The issues included the consideration of objections, the jurisdiction to condone delay, and the finality of the order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty to give reasons for decisions, the finality of orders, and the need to consider objections before making a decision.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the file back to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on the application for condonation of delay.

1. This revision petition arises against the order dated 1.12.2008 passed by the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Anantnag, whereby he has accepted the appeals of the present respondent filed against the mutation No. Nil dated 22.05.1985 and mutation No. Nil dated 20.05.1985 under Section 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act respectively with regard to Survey Nos. 96 min (13 Ms), 97 (7 Marlas) situated at village Pahalgam District Anantnag. The same impugned order be set aside.

2. In order to decide the case, it would be advantageous to give brief resume of the case.

3. Brief facts of the case are as that the land measuring 06 Kanals and 15 Marlas, comprising under various Survey Nos. 96 Min=13 Marlas; 394/96= 2 Marlas; 697/96=4 Marlas; 97 Min=02 Kanal 01 Marla; 694/97= 11 Marlas; 97 Min=07 Marlas; 98= 19 Marlas; and 99=1 kanal and 18 Marlas situated at Village Pahalgam has been in possession of the petitioner prior to 1971 and has been using it as owner and mutation under section 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act have been attested in favour of the petitioner in the year 1985. The petitioner had constructed a hotel on the portion of land and due to militancy he was forced to close his business activity. Respondents have exploited the absence of the petitioner and encroached some of his portion of land. Petitioner with the help of some respectable members of the concerned locality tried to evict the respondents from the said portion of land but the respondents have make dejection and in this backdrop the petitioner was constrained to file a petition under section 38 before Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Anantnag for restoration of the land illegally occupied by the respondents. Petition was allowed by the ADC, Anantnag to review the order passed by Assistant Commissioner, Pahalgam and the land in dispute measuring 2 Kanals and 6 Marlas was restored to his possession.

4. Respondents were aggrieved of the said order challenged the same before the Special Tribunal, Tribunal was pleased to decide the revision petition on 10.08.2004 with the direction that order dated 16.4.1988 passed by the ACR, Pahalgam and 5.4.2002 to the extent of allowing the application under section 38 of the Act and restoring the possession to the respondents are set aside and application was send to Assistant Commissioner Revenue for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. After providing a reasonable opportunity to adduce their respective evidence in respect of application and parties were directed to appear before the ACR, Pahalgam. Parties have appeared before the ACR and contest the matter with great vision but later on, respondent relied that they are fighting a last battle and surrender the possession of land which have been under their illegal possession/occupation and preferred an appeal under section 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, in 2005 along with the application for extension of time.

5. Petitioner has filed his objection in application for condonation of delay, seriously controverted the contention of the appellant as it is time barred. Agrarian Commissioner has allowed the application for condonation of delay on 01.12.2008. The petitioner is aggrieved of that order and challenged the same on various grounds mentioned herein below:-

6. Impugned order is quite, clearly reveals that Agrarian Commissioner has not considered the objections which are filed in support of the application for condonation of delay and has not been complied the objections filed by the respondents. It is well principle of law that if finding of fact has been arrived without applying of mind then finding of fact is nothing but finding which vitiated by substantial error or law. While allowing the application for condonation of delay court below has not given any support of his order, as such, order impugned is liable to be set aside. Ld Agrarian Commissioner has not exercised the discretion according to the well established judicial principles and according to the reason






















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