Ramesh Kumar Wattal, J. (Member)

1. The case is discussed under the following heads:-

1. Memorandum of Revision petition

2. Arguments of the petitioner

3. Arguments of the Respondents

4. Decision

Memorandum of Revision Petition

The petitioner has presented this Revision petition on the grounds;

1. That the land measuring 118 kanals 3 marlas comprising khasra No. 1 [34 kanals], khasra No. 17 (37 kanals 11 marlas) and khasra No. 18 (46 kanais and 12 marlas) of Village Channi Rama was owned by Kapoor Singh and other owners. This land was under the occupancy tenancy of Kanshi Ram and Nasher Din S/o. Chaghatta was in cultivating possession thereof; on coming into operation the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act. The owners Kapoor Singh and others and occupancy tenants Kanshi Ram did not include this land in their units of selection under Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 2007. Mutation No. 121 of village Channi Rama was thereafter attested in favor of the state. It is worthwhile to submit here that rights of Nasher Din who was non occupancy tenant in possession of said land were completely ignored while attesting mutation No. 121 of Village Channi Rama.

2. That vide award No. LA/669-70, dated 19.08.71 land measuring 74 kanals 06 marlas was shown to have been acquired for Housing Board while the remaining land measuring 43 kanals 19 marlas out of 118 kanals 03 marlas was shown to have been acquired for JDA vide award No. LA/1286-89, dated 31.03.84. However, possession of land measuring 38 kanals Sic marlas was shown to have been taken in 1976 by JDA though no compensation of this land was paid to the owners because ownership has wrongly been shown to be that of State. As already submitted that Nasher Din was tenant of the land whose right were completely ignored while attesting mutation No. 121 of said village. It is submitted that Jan Mohd. S/o. Nasher Din who had run away during the disturbance of 2004 to save his life, after coming back filed a revision petition in 1968 before the Commissioner challenging the conferment of proprietary rights of the land measuring 118 kanals 03 marlas mentioned above on the State. The said revision petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Jan Mohd. thereafter, filed revision petition before Financial Commissioner who accepted the same on 08.07.1969 by holding that law of limitation was not applicable in view of the Section-30 of the B.L.E.A. Act. The Financial Commissioner further observed that it was the function of the Officer superior to Special Tehsildar who had attested mutation No. 121 to move for cancellation of the order under revision on the ground that the said land could not have been declared as escheated to the State unless the right of the Nasher Din who was the tiller of the land were considered and disposed of. Thus, the order of the Commissioner was set aside and the case was remanded back to Tehsildar Jammu for fresh enquiry and appropriate order with further direction that subject to the conditions prescribed by the BLEA Act being satisfied Nasher Din or his heirs were entitled to be given ownership right and entitlement to attestation of mutation in his favour. It is further submitted that the land comprising of Khasra No. 1, 17 and 18 of Channi Rama was in cultivating possession of Rohlu S/o. Kanshi R/o. Bhau, Chhagha S/o. Haria and Rohlu S/o. Lacchu the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents in this revision petition from 2005 onwards and yet mutation No. 121 was attested in favour of the State under BLEA Act 2007 BK.

3. That against the order of Financial Commissioner dt. 08.07.1969, State and other respondents filed a revision petition before the Revenue Minister who vide his order dt. 23.04.1971 accepted the revision petition and while setting aside the order of F.C. dated 08.07.1969 restored the mutation order dated 26.09.2007 passed by special Tehsildar Jammu, while attesting mutation No. 121 of Channi Rama.

4. That the order of Revenue Minister dt.