Back
2015 Supreme(J&K) 712
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR, J.
Satesh Chander Kuthiala – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
OWP No. 28 of 2014, MP No. 28 of 2014
Decided On : 07-08-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. J.H. Reshi.
For the Respondent: Mr. B.A. Dar.
The key legal principle established in the judgment is that the Sale Deed executed in 1961 legally transferred all rights and interests in the land to the Forest Department, extinguishing the previous owner's rights.
Headnote:
Writ of Mandamus - Possession of Land - J&K Land Acquisition Act - [Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act, Section 7 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act] - The court discussed the possession of land, the rights of the petitioners, and the legal implications of the Sale Deed executed in 1961. The key legal provisions of Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act and Section 7 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act were interpreted to determine the legal rights of the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the restoration of possession of land or compensation under the J&K Land Acquisition Act. The respondents claimed ownership based on a Sale Deed executed in 1961. The petitioners argued that their rights in the property survived and possession should be restored to them or compensation paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sale Deed executed in 1961 transferred all rights and interests in the land to the Forest Department, extinguishing the previous owner's rights. The court held that the petitioners' claims could not be granted in the writ petition and that the dispute was of a civil nature for which a writ petition was not the appropriate remedy.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership and possession of the land, the legal rights of the petitioners, and the validity of the Sale Deed executed in 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Sale Deed legally transferred all rights and interests in the land to the Forest Department, precluding the petitioners from asserting any right qua the land in question. The court also held that the Writ of Mandamus could not be issued as there was no vested legal right in the petitioners and the dispute was of a civil nature.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as meritless, and the court held that the relief sought by the petitioners could not be granted in the writ petition.
MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR, J.
1. The petitioners pray for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the possession to the petitioners 1 to 6, to the extent of land measuring 367 Kanals comprising of Khewat no. 314 Min, situated at Saloora, Tehsil and District Ganderbal, Kashmir.
2. In the alternative it is prayed that respondents be directed to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of the above land in accordance with the provisions of J&K Land Acquisition Act.
The basis of praying for issuance of aforesaid directions inter-alia is that one Lala Mangat Ram who passed away on 30th May, 1958, was owner in possession of land measuring 1353 Kanals 19 Marlas comprising of Khewat No. 314 situated at Saloora, Tehsil and District Ganderbal, Kashmir; the land was purchased from one Prethivi Maya Singh adopted son of Thal Dhan Singh by way of duly registered Sale Deed no. 1481 in the year 2003 (Bikrimi) i.e. 1946 A. D, for a consideration amount of Rs. 70,000, Late Mangat Ram, had two wives namely Smt. Laxmi Devi and Smt. Satyawati and both of them are dead; Shrimati Laxmi Devi, had begotten one son namely Mansa Ram and her second wife namely Satyawati had begotten two sons namely Radha Krishen, Kewal Krishan and three daughters namely Swarn Lata, Shakuntala and Indubala to Lala Mangat Ram; the son Mansa Ram passed away on 13th January 1983, leaving behind his widow namely Smt. Krishna Devi, two sons namely Satesh Chander and Suresh Chander and two daughters namely, Shashi and Sushma; Smt. Krishna Devi, is also stated to have passed away on 7th August, 1983 and her one son namely Suresh Chander has also passed away on 12th April, 2001.
3. The further case of the petitioners is that petitioners 2 to 6 have executed power of attorney in favour of petitioner no. (1) Who has been duly appointed attorney to deal with all the aspects of the matter to the extent of their entitlement and share from the land measuring 1353 Kanal 19 Marlas comprising of Khewat No. 314 Min.
4. It is also pleaded that petitioner no. (1) had joined army and retired as Brigadier from the Indian Army, in the year 1997 after rendering a long service of almost 35 years and has taken part in all the three military combats in the year 1962, 1965 and 1971.
5. At paragraph (14) of the writ petition, it is pleaded that, land measuring 252 Kanals has been under the tenancy of different tenants and they have become owners of the said land in terms of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, whereas land measuring 1076 Kanals has been occupied by the Forest Department. Reference has also been made to orders on mutation passed by Revenue Officers.
6. It is also referred to in the writ petition that respondents have staked their claim of being owners in possession of property on the basis of a "so called" Sale Deed.
7. Respondents 1, 4 and 6, have filed reply affidavit and it is specifically pleaded that respondent-Forest department has purchased the land measuring 1077 Kanals and 16 Marlas, which is subject matter of the writ petition, from Radha Krishan Kuthiala, Kewal Krishna Kuthiala, Swarn Lata, Shakuntala and Indubala, sons and daughters of Late Lala Mangat Ram, in the year 1961, for a consideration amount of Rs. 64,665/- regarding which Sale Deed has been executed and is registered by Sub-registrar, Srinagar, on 11th April 1961.
8. It is also pleaded that, though order of Mutation No. 1249 has been recorded in the name of Forest Department, on the basis of aforesaid Sale Deed but for the reasons known to the Revenue Officers, it has not been attested.
9. In pursuance of the Court order, respondent no. 3, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has filed status report, in which besides reiterating what has been stated in the reply affidavit, it has been submitted that the land is a fully grown forest of willow trees, and is fenced on all sides. It is also stated that the forest is being managed under clear felling Silvicuture system, strictly as per work
