Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, SANJAY DHAR
Manzoor Ahmad Mir – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Mithal, J.-The judgment and order dated 31.12.2020 dismissing OWP No.739/2017 is impugned herein this appeal.
2. The controversy in the appeal is regarding possession and eviction of the appellants from 5 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land covered by Survey No.92 situate at Hang Rajpora, Kawarhama, Tangmarg.
3. The appellants claim that one Shrimati Deviki was the owner/ co-sharer of the said land. She executed a power of attorney on 11.09.1997 and her power of attorney holder vide agreement dated 23.10.2003 agreed to transfer the said land in favour of the appellants and delivered possession to the appellants.
4. The seventh respondent, Pushpati Nath Koul, filed OWP No.1308/2014 alleging that the appellants are in illegal possession of the land belonging to a migrant which was disposed of vide order dated 20.08.2014 directing the State respondents to take desired action in the matter in accordance with law.
5. In pursuance of the above order, the District Magistrate, Baramulla, passed an order dated 31.10.2014 holding that the possession of the appellants over the said land is not legal and the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation,
The District Magistrate has the authority to take possession of migrant property and evict unauthorized occupants under the Act of 1997.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the District Magistrate must conduct a proper enquiry before issuing an eviction order under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property ....
Possession of migrant property without express consent and proper authorization is deemed unauthorized under the J&K Migrant Immovable Property Act.
The Divisional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and pass the impugned order. The District Magistrate, not the Divisional Commissioner, is authorized to hold an enquiry into....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the J&K Migrant Immovable Act, 1997, specifically Section 8, can bar a civil suit and lead to its dismissal under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
A statutory authority cannot revoke its own orders unless expressly permitted by the statute, and disputes regarding property title must be resolved in appropriate proceedings.
The court established that agricultural land vested in the state under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act cannot be claimed by former owners or tenants until the appropriate legal processes are completed, ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
