The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and the requirement to disclose material facts, and it highlighted the impact of a pending civil suit on the maintainability of a writ petition.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order of respondent No.3 dated 29.04.2009 and of respondent No.4 dated 07.03.2010 passed on mutation No. 2413 with regard to land bearing Khasra No. 807 min/ 224 measuring 28 kanals 09 marlas situated at Kundrorian, Tehsil Reasi on the ground that the petitioners and respondents Nos. 5 & 6 are co-owners/ co-sharers of a big chunk of land situated at Kundrorian, Village Puranadroor, Katra. It is averred in the petition that vide mutation No. 824, one Lachhan was declared as prospective owner with regard to land bearing khasra Nos. 807/224 measuring 37 kanals 09 marlas situated at Kundrorian and vide mutation No. 1076 dated 13.09.1993, application filed by respondents 5 & 6 under Section 7 of Agrarian Reforms Act for resumption of land was rejected by respondent No.3, which was challenged by respondent Nos. 5 & 6 before respondent No.10, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur who was vested with powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms. The appeal came to be rejected. The rejection order dated 07.11.2003 passed by respondent No.10 in appeal was challenged by respondents 5 & 6 before respondent No.3, who vide order dated 29.04.2009 set aside the aforesaid order in view of the compromise between respondent No. 5 & 6 and respondent No.9. The case was remanded to respondent No.4 with a direction to attest the mutation in terms of compromise deed dated 17.02.2009. Respondent No.4 attested mutation No. 2413 dated 07.03.2010 by virtue whereof rights to the extent of 09 kanals with regard to land bearing khasra Nos. 807/224 were conferred in favour of respondent Nos. 5&6 while to the extent of land measuring 19 kanals 09 marlas, the rights were conferred in favour of respondent Nos. 7&9. Petitioners, feeling aggrieved, are seeking quashment of order dated 29.04.2009 and 07.03.2010 respectively passed by respondent Nos. 3&4.

2. Respondent Nos. 5&6 filed objections to the petition which were adopted by other respondents except respondent Nos. 7&9 who were set ex-parte. It is pleaded that the land under survey Nos. 807/224 was in cultivating possession of Lachhan and after his demise, the same fell in the hands of his widow, respondent No.9. It is pleaded that Lachhan was a tenant under the grandfather of respondent Nos. 5&6 who sought resumption of land out of khasra Nos. 807/224. Father of respondent Nos. 5&6 died during the life time of his father. The resumption application was declined. Appeal carried against the same too was dismissed. Respondent Nos. 5&6 assailed the same before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, where a compromise was recorded between respondents 5&6 and respondent No.9, in terms whereof respondent No.9 agreed to part with 09 kanals of land out of khasra No. 807/224 in favour of respondent Nos. 5&6 while 24 kanals 09 marlas was agreed to be retained by respondent No.9. The revision petition filed before the Tribunal came to be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to attest the mutations under Section 7&8 of Agrarian Reforms Act in terms of the compromise. Mutation No. 2413 was attested by respondent No.4 accordingly. It is pleaded that since there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and Lachhan, they were not entitled to resumption of land. Thus, the writ petition was not maintainable. It is further pleaded that petitioners have filed a civil suit for declaration and partition pending adjudication before the learned District Judge, Reasi wherein they seek to draw their title through one Prithi Singh by laying a false claim that Prithi Singh had been adopted by Shiv Ram. It is pleaded that Prithi Singh had inherited the property of his natural father Jaru and this fact is reflected in Jamabandi. It is further pleaded that Prithi Singh never enjoyed the status of co-owner/co-sharer with the res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document