Back
2015 Supreme(J&K) 698
JAMMU AND KASHMIR SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
SONALI KUMAR, IAS (CHAIRPERSON)
Ropu - Appellant
Versus
Som Nath - Respondent
File No. STJ/112 of 2011
Decided On : 03-03-2015
For the Appellant : Mr. O.P. Thakur.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.L. Bhat.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of valid evidence, particularly regarding inheritance and cultivating possession, in determining entitlement to benefits under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.
Headnote:
Agrarian Reforms Act - Disputed Land Ownership - Section 4, Section 8 - [Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 4 and Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, which determine the entitlement for benefits under the Act based on cultivating possession and inheritance. The court emphasized the importance of valid evidence and adoption deeds in establishing ownership and entitlement to benefits under the Act. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and the evidence presented regarding land possession and inheritance.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership and entitlement to benefits of a piece of land under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. The petitioner claimed cultivating possession and entitlement to benefits, while the respondent contested the claim based on inheritance and adoption deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had valid evidence of inheritance and adoption deeds, establishing their entitlement to the disputed land. The court also determined that the petitioner's evidence of cultivating possession and rent receipts did not pertain to the suit land, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's claim.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the validity of evidence regarding land possession, inheritance, and entitlement to benefits under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the validity and relevance of evidence presented, particularly regarding inheritance and cultivating possession, in determining entitlement to benefits under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim and upholding the respondent's entitlement to the disputed land. The stay order issued in the case was vacated, and the records were to be returned to the court below.
Sonali Kumar, IAS (Chairperson)
1. This revision is directed against an order dated 14.05.1993 whereby an appeal filed by petitioner against Mutation No. 160, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that then Circle Officer corrected girdawari entries in favour of petitioner and Santokhu and Ashwani which was challenged by Beli Ram before then Deputy Commissioner Udhampur which were transferred to Commissioner Agrarian Reforms after coming into force of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. The Commissioner Agrarian Reforms after adjudication upon the appeal accepted the same quashed the entries made by Circle Officer and directed Tehsildar Udhampur to hold the factual enquiry into the entry made by the Circle Officer in terms of Rule 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Rules, 1977. The Tehsildar held the enquiry as per the orders of Commissioner and ultimately held that Som Nath was in cultivating possession of the suit land being an owner and not Ropu and others and held them not entitled for benefits of Agrarian Reforms Act. This order of the Commissioner was challenged by petitioner before the Commissioner who dismissed the same vide impugned order. Aggrieved of the impugned order the petitioner has filed a revision earlier in 1996 which was disposed of by the then Ld. Member of this Tribunal on 25.02.1999 whereby the revision filed by Ropu has been dismissed. This order of Tribunal dated 25.02.1999 was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court through Writ Petition No. 237/99 and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.11.2001 remanded the matter to the Tribunal with the direction to go into the question of facts also in determining as to who was in actual possession in the year 1971. The reference has been made by the Hon'ble High Court to an authority reported as 2000 KLJ 542 in case titled Satya Devi v. State of J&K and Ors. This order of the Hon'ble High Court is being implemented by deciding this revision.
3. During the pendency of the case before this Tribunal petitioner Ropu died and he was substituted by his legal heirs namely Sukhdevi widow of Ropu, Bishano Devi Daughter and Thakur Dass son.
4. The petitioner in the revision petition as well as in his arguments pleaded that he was in the cultivating possession of the suit land before 1976 and was paying the rent to Ropu regularly so he acquired the status of a tenant and was entitled for benefits under Agrarian Reforms Act. The possession of the petitioner stands reflected in the revenue records of 1971 which is the determining factor for conferring benefits under the Act. The Tehsildar Udhampur ignored the fact that the petitioner had the receipts of rent issued by Beli Ram, ex-landlord and the witnesses produced by the petitioner. The Tehsildar failed to appreciate the evidences adduced by the petitioner and the Tehsildar made stress on number of witnesses and not on the quality of the statements. That the observations of Tehsildar as well as Commissioner that the rate of rent pertains to some other land and not to the suit land is not connected. Beli Ram respondent herein had died without any issue and the claim of respondents that he was adopted by Beli Ram is not correct. The evidence recorded by the mutating officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is governed by the evidence Act which prescribes the mode of recording evidence of witnesses. That mode has not been properly adopted by the Mutating Officer. This question requires determination by the Tribunal being the question of public importance because the Revenue Officer filed the procedure while recording evidence of the witnesses. The whole of the proceedings recorded by the Mutating Officer are against the law cannot be made basis for dismissing the appeal. A prayer has been made to accept the revision and set aside impugned orders.
5. The respondent in his revision pleaded that there are concurrent finding of facts recorded by the court below so the present revision is
