Point of Law: It is not for this Court to direct issuance of Fard in favour of the petitioner moreso when the right of the petitioner is itself under cloud and stands disputed by the respondents in response to the claim preferred by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

PUNEET GUPTA, J.

1. The petitioner claims to have purchased 20 kanals of land falling under Khasra No. 2471 min, Khata No. 1496 min and Khewat No. 49 situate at Village Kote, Tehsil Jammu now Bhalwal, District Jammu from Rajinder Kumar, stated to be the erstwhile owner of the property, by virtue of registered Sale Deed and further that he is in physical possession of the said property. The mutation also came to be registered in his favour. It appears that the petitioner intends to sell one kanal of land out of the aforesaid land and applied for issuance of Fard before the Revenue Authority. The application has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 25.06.2020 and the same has been challenged in the present petition. The petitioner also seeks quashment of Circular No. 03-FCR of 2019 dated 30.12.2019 whereby the respondent No. 2 has issued certain directions qua the issuance of revenue documents for transfer and alienation of land which fall within the ambit of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act SVT 2007 (hereinafter called the Act). It is submitted that the circular issued by respondent No. 2 is without authority and the same is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that the nature of the land of the petitioner does not in any manner fall within the provisions of the Act which may bar the alienation of the land in question.

2. The objections to the petition stand filed by the respondents wherein the stand taken is that the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition; that the respondent No. 2 was within his powers to issue the circular impugned under the Act. It is further stated that the ownership rights of the petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest (seller of the land in question) having been extinguished in view of the provisions of the Act the Sale Deed registered in favour of the petitioner herein was void ab initio. The mutation attested in favour of the petitioner is also, therefore, null and void. The petition deserves to be dismissed.

3. Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated the submissions made in the writ petition. It is argued that the provisions of the Act do not deprive the present petitioner of having rights in the property in question or to transfer the same in favour of some third party. The circular issued by the respondent No. 2 is without authority and in any case runs contrary to the provisions of the Act.

4. Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG has argued that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact and thus not maintainable. The circular has been issued by the competent authority only in order to carry out the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit. In any case, the petitioner cannot seek relief in view of the express provisions of the Act which debar certain lands from being subject matter of transfer or alienation.

5. The controversy involved in the present petition does not pertain merely to the rights of the present petitioner to transfer the land or interest in the same to another entity but also pertains to the rights of the so called owner in the land in question in the year 1950 when the Act came into operation or thereafter and further his right of alienation of land in favour of the present petitioner. The matter also involves determination of factual aspects intrinsically coupled with the law governing the subject which cannot be adjudicated upon by the court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction vested in it.

6. It is not for this Court to direct issuance of Fard in favour of the petitioner moreso when the right of the petitioner is itself under cloud and stands disputed by the respondents in response to the claim preferred by the petitioner.

7. The petitioner is required to approach the revenue authorities for redressal of his grievance. The court has been informed that the circular in question has been stayed by this court. The petitioner is a