Back
SANJAY DHAR
Ghulam Rasool Bhat – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Petitioners have challenged order bearing No.DCB/ARA/CC/366 dated 19.08.2015, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, whereby Tehsildar, Chadoora, has been directed to take over possession of the land measuring 7 kanals 5 covered by survey No.419 situated at Village Ropora Namthal Tehsil Chadoora from the petitioner. The aforesaid order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 4(1) of the Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1997).
2. The case of petitioner, in brief, is that he purchased a parcel of land measuring 7 kanals 5 marlas under Survey No.419 situated at Village Ropora Namthal Tehsil Chadoora District Budgam from one Madusudan Razdan and Ashok Kumar Razdan-respondent No.9 herein, way back in the year 1989 and obtained possession of the said land from them. It is averred that a proper sale deed could not be executed. Nevertheless, on 23rd February, 1998, above named Madusudan Razdan and Ashok Kumar Razdan executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner. It is further averred that the p
The District Magistrate has the authority to take possession of migrant property and evict unauthorized occupants under the Act of 1997.
Possession of migrant property without express consent and proper authorization is deemed unauthorized under the J&K Migrant Immovable Property Act.
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 ....
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 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....
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
