Back
2015 Supreme(J&K) 185
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, B.S. Walia, JJ.
Haseena and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of J&K and Ors. - Resopndent
LPA Nos. 137 and 139 of 2014
Decided On : 09-06-2015
For the Appellant : G.A. Lone.
For the Respondents: G.M. Reshi, Dy. A.G.
The revisional authority has the power to review cases with merit but barred by limitation and to undo wrongs, advancing the object of the Agrarian Reforms Act.
Headnote:
Agrarian Reforms Act - Land Dispute - Section 4, Section 8, Section 21, Rule 52 of Agrarian Reforms Rules, 1977
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over land ownership and mutations. Appellants challenged mutations regarding land ownership. Tribunal allowed condonation of delay and set aside mutations, remanding the case for de novo enquiry. Single Judge partially allowed writ petitions, quashing the order of the Tribunal to set aside mutations and de novo enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The revisional authority has the power to look into all aspects of the controversy, including cases barred by limitation but with merit. The Appellate Authority failed to consider the merits of the case and submit it to the revisional authority as required by Rule 52. The revisional authority has the power to undo the wrong and advance the object of the Agrarian Reforms Act.
Issues: Whether the revisional authority exceeded its jurisdiction, and whether the mutations were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The revisional authority has the power to review cases with merit but barred by limitation. The Appellate Authority must submit cases with merit but barred by limitation to the revisional authority. The revisional authority has the power to undo wrongs and advance the object of the Agrarian Reforms Act.
Final Decision: The judgment of the Single Judge is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner (Collector) for de novo enquiry.
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.:-
1. This appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 15.07.2014 passed by learned Single while disposing of OWP Nos. 1279/2011 and 1682/2011.
2. Land covered by Survey Nos. 244-min (6 kanals 17 marlas) and 245-min (2 kanals 8 marlas) situated at Larkipora Tehsil Awantipora, in the year 1971, is shown recorded in the personal cultivation of its owners i.e. Aziz and Jabbar sons of Razak Dar in equal shares. Both of them are dead, survived by the appellants.
3. In the year 1975, mutation for correction of entries bearing No. 594 has been attested on 15.09.1975, where-under land covered by survey No. 244-min measuring 2 kanals and 245-min measuring 2 kanals, in total 4 kanals, has been ordered to be recorded in cultivation of Mohammad Bhat S/O. Samad Bhat (respondent No. 4 herein) with effect from 1971 as tenant on payment of rent as “NAQDI HASBI PARTI DEH”.
4. Vide mutation No. 721 attested on 07.08.1982, land covered by survey No. 244-min (4 kanals 8 marlas) and 245-min (4 marlas) (in total 4 kanals 12 marlas) has been mutated under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act extinguishing ownership of Aziz and declaring respondent No. 4 as prospective owner. Then vide mutation No. 725, respondent No. 4 has been conferred ownership rights under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act.
5. Respondent No. 4 had filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Court of Sub Judge, Pulwama. Copy of the plaint available on the records would suggest that the respondent No. 4 had claimed to be owner in possession of land measuring 7 kanals 9 marlas covered by Survey No. 1419(new 244) and 245 (old) situated at Village Larkipora Padgampora. It is also averred that mutation Nos. 594, 725 and 726 regarding said land have been attested in his favour. It is also mentioned therein that the appellants have challenged the said mutations in an appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner which has been dismissed. The said suit has been withdrawn unconditionally on 07.07.2014, as is clear from the copy of the order recorded by the Court of Sub-Judge, Pulwama, as placed on records.
6. Appellants have filed appeals against all three mutations before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Pulwama. The appeals were time barred. Applications seeking condonation of delay have been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 24.05.2010. As against that order, appellants filed revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal. Learned Tribunal noticing the features of the case, orders passed and the distortion of facts accepted the revision petition, allowed application for condonation of delay, while setting aside mutations remanded case to Tehsildar, Pulwama for de novo enquiry.
7. Dissatisfied therewith, respondent No. 2 has filed two writ petitions bearing OWP No. 1279/2011 on 27.09.2011 and OWP No. 1682/2011 on 21.11.2011 seeking quashment of order dated 15.09.2011 passed by J&K Special Tribunal.
8. Both the two writ petitions have been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 15.07.2014. Counsel who had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4 had stated that he has no objection if the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Additional Deputy Commissioner are allowed and the appeals are heard on merits. Learned Single Judge has opined that once applications for condonation of delay were dismissed and the appeals dismissed as barred by limitation, then it was not within the powers of Tribunal to have enlarged the scope of the revision petition and to hear and determine the appeal itself. The Tribunal has obviously exceeded its jurisdiction rendering its remand order as illegal and bad in law. Finally, learned Single Judge has partially allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order of the Tribunal to the extent of setting aside mutation orders and de-novo enquiry by the Tehsildar.
9.
