Back
2020 Supreme(J&K) 346
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Om Parkash
Versus
State of J&K and others
OWP No. 509/2013 IA Nos. 686/2013 & 1239/2013
Decided on 14-09-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Meherban Singh, Advocate (Through video conference)
For the Respndents: Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr.AAG (Through video conference)
Headnote:
Agrarian Reforms Act, 976 - Section 6 - Big Landed Estates Abolition - Special Tribunal - Collector by respondents under Big Landed Estates Abolition Act who remanded case to vide order - In year mutation Section Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of land aforementioned was attested in favor respondents - Said order of was challenged by petitioner before respondent Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Jammu with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu in appeal which was decided and order of where by mutation attested in favor of respondents Section was set aside - Respondent Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Jammu with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu while deciding appeal also directed to decide case in terms of order of remand passed by Collector Deputy Commissioner under Big Landed Estates Abolition Act – Held, Big Landed Estates Abolition Act on whereby was directed to pass fresh order of mutation - Said order however was not complied with as is evident from orders passed by respondent as well as respondent when mutation Section was attested on basis of order passed said order of mutation was challenged before respondent Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Jammu with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu in appeal filed by petitioner herein - Said appeal was allowed mutation was set aside by observing that order of Collector passed has not been complied and direction was given to concerned to comply with same - This part of order passed by Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner came to be challenged before Special Tribunal in revision petition which was filed whereas order which was sought to be revised was passed by respondent revision was thus filed after more than six years - No reason has been shown for such delay in said revision petition - Record of file reveals that on basis of order passed by respondent Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Jammu with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu mutation was attested and order was complied on much before filing of revision petition before J&K Special Tribunal - This fact has also been concealed in revision petition - Petitioner has nowhere disclosed in revision petition that order impugned stands implemented - Revision petition filed by petitioner was dismissed and this writ petition has been filed on why petitioner waited for more than one year for challenging order of respondent is also not explained – Petition dismissed
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved of an order dated 10.07.2012, passed by respondent No. 2- J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (for brevity ‘Tribunal’) whereby order of the respondent No. 3-Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu) has been upheld and the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner’s case is that land measuring 2 kanals and 2 marlas and land measuring 13 marla in Khasra No. 202 and 204 situated in village Lengeth Tehsil Samba, District Jammu was mutated in favour of his elder brother Hoshiara and father of the petitioner in the years 2007 Bk.
The said order of attesting of mutation was assailed before the Collector by the respondents under the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, who remanded the case to Tehsildar vide order 18.12.1956. In the year 1991 mutation under Section 6 of Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of land aforementioned was attested in favour of the respondents. The said order of Tehsildar was challenged by the petitioner before the respondent No. 3-Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu) in appeal which was decided on 02.06.2001 and order of the Tehsildar, where by mutation attested in favour of the respondents under Section 6 was set aside. Respondent No. 3-Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu), while deciding the appeal also directed the Tehsildar to decide the case in terms of the order of remand passed by the Collector Deputy Commissioner under Big Landed Estates Abolition, Act. The petitioner challenged this part of the order before the respondent No. 2-Tribunal and the order impugned was upheld and revision dismissed.
3. The order has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that the orders are contrary, against the law, because order dated 18.12.1956 cannot be implemented at this stage and that Joint Agrarian Reforms, Commissioner is not an authority under the Agrarian Reforms, Act. The order dated 18.12.1956 cannot be implemented at this stage because after the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, the Agrarian Reforms Act came into force. The order of the Tribunal has been challenged, precisely on the ground that the same is perverse, contrary to the facts and the finding of respondent No. 3 is against law, as the order dated 18.12.1956, could not be implemented at this stage and that respondent No. 3- Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu was not an authority under the Agrarian Reforms Act, after the abolition of the Big Landed Estates Abolition, Act came into force.
4. The respondents 4,5,7,10,16 and 18 in their objections have challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the respondent 1, and 7 to 19 are neither necessary nor proper parties, only respondents 4 to 6 are interested and involved in the litigation. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person within the measuring of section 21 of the Agrarian Reforms, Act and has thus no locus standi, as the land is Abadi Deh and Gair Mumkin which has been mutated in favour of Basant Singh, grandfather of respondents 4 to 7. The revision before the respondent No. 2 was not maintainable as the same was filed after a period of six years and there was no question of law or of public importance involved as is required under the provisions of Section 21 (2) of the Agrarian Reforms, Act. 1976. The order of respondent No. 3-Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu) dated 28.08.1988 has already been implemented vide mutation no. 311, as such, nothing survives in the writ petition. Moreover, the writ petition has been filed against a dead person i.e., respondent No. 8 who had expired on 07.07.2000 i.e. during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No. 3.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the fil
