Back
2018 Supreme(J&K) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Tashi Rabstan, J.
Baisakhi Ram – Petitioner
Versus
J&K Spl. Tribunal and others – Respondents
OWP No.1945 of 2014
Decided On : 22-03-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.S. Chouhan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. FA Natnoo, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Verma, Adv.
The discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the limitations on invoking writ or supervisory jurisdiction against interlocutory orders.
Headnote:
Revisional Powers - J&K Evacuees (Administration of property) Act - Section 30, Section 30A - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 30 and Section 30A of the J&K Evacuees (Administration of property) Act, emphasizing the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the limitations on invoking writ or supervisory jurisdiction against interlocutory orders. The court held that the revisional powers of the Custodian are wide and include the authority to finally dispose of proceedings, and that the J&K Special Tribunal was correct in not intervening in the matter due to the interim nature of the orders. The court also cited a legal principle from the case Kokkanda B. Poondacha vs K. D. Ganapathi, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction is to be exercised only in cases of violation of fundamental, constitutional, or statutory rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought writs of prohibition and certiorari to restrain the respondent from proceeding with an appeal and to quash an order. The dispute arose from the regularization of land and subsequent appeals and orders by the Custodian and Custodian General.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the J&K Special Tribunal was correct in dismissing the revision, as the orders were interim and not final in nature. It held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of revisional powers under the J&K Evacuees (Administration of property) Act, the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction, and the propriety of invoking writ jurisdiction against interlocutory orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the limitations on invoking writ or supervisory jurisdiction against interlocutory orders. It held that the revisional powers of the Custodian are wide and include the authority to finally dispose of proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as lacking merit, and any interim direction was vacated.
1. Through the medium of instant petition, petitioner is seeking writ in the nature of prohibition restraining and prohibiting respondent No.2 from proceeding in the matter of appeal titled Ram Ditta, Karam Chand alias Kama v. Baisakhi Ram; with a further prayer for issuance of writ of Certiorari quashing order dated 08.12.2014 as passed by respondent No.1 in File No.STJ/447/2013 on the grounds taken in it.
2. The facts of the case are that with the passing of order by the Assistant Custodian on 18.01.2005 some piece of land was regularized in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereof, the respondents no.4 and 5 herein preferred a Revision against the said order before the Ld. Custodian, who decided the same on 28.02.2013 thereby dismissing the revision filed by the respondents no.4 and 5 herein. The respondents no.4 and 5 herein thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Ld. Custodian General who issued notice to the Petitioner herein on 06.06.2013 and directed the parties to maintain status quo. The Custodian General further issued an order on 19.08.2013 whereby he issued notice in the contempt application filed by the respondents no.4 and 5 herein against the petitioner.
3. Petitioner, aggrieved of orders dated 06.06.2013 and 19.08.2013 approached the J&K Special Tribunal, which however, dismissed the said revision by holding that both the orders were ex parte and the same would never divest the Court seized of the matter to decide the issue on merits. The J&K Special Tribunal further held that in the wake of the fact that the Custodian General was yet to determine the matter finally on its merits, as such, it had no reason to intervene against ad-interim ex parte orders and thus dismissed the revision holding the same to be not maintainable and directed the Court below i.e., the Custodian General, to proceed ahead with the matter and decide the same as per law.
4. Against the said order dated 08.12.2014, the petitioner preferred instant writ petition on the grounds that Revisional powers are quite vast and cannot be crippled or truncated by any manner whatsoever and could be invoked in case of ‘any proceedings’ and Section 31-A of the J&K Evacuees (Administration of property) Act has been misinterpreted in instant case, that Appeal against revisional order of custodian does not lie before the Ld. Custodian General and is not maintainable, that Respondent no.4 has no locus to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Custodian and the Custodian, that Petitioner cannot be deprived of his right and interest in question.
5. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed objections contending various grounds on the non-maintainability of the petition with the preliminary objections that on the face of record it is nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioner to somehow linger on the proceedings in the matter before the authority below for undisclosed reasons. It is contended that as per order of custodian it is revealed that even the findings and conclusions drawn by learned Custodian does not help the petitioner which in fact has directed retrieval of the E.P. Land in question and its maintenance departmentally. In his para-wise objections the respondents have denied the averments in the writ petition and, thus, submitted that in the wake of such circumstances, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
6. The respondent no.4 has filed his objections to the petition citing various grounds on the non-maintainability of the petition with the preliminary objections that writ petition has been filed prematurely that petitioner has an efficacious and alternate remedy available with him, that petition involved disputed questions of fact, and that the petition is only filed to thwart the process of law. In his para-wise objections, the respondent no.4 has denied the averments in the writ petition and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Heard Ld. Counsel for the p
