Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
SANJAY DHAR, J.
Sona Waza - Petitioner
Versus
J&K Special Tribunal & Ors. - Respondents
OWP No. 1790 of 2017
Decided On : 08-02-2021
Agrarian Reforms Act - Land Mutation - Section 4, Section 8 - The court discussed the scope of judicial review of decisions of Tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities, emphasizing the limited intervention in cases of jurisdictional errors, violation of natural justice, and manifest errors based on disregard of the law. The court upheld the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, considering the turmoil in the region and the lack of notice to affected parties during mutation orders. It also affirmed the finding that the land in question was an orchard based on the record of the mutation orders and the girdwari of 1971.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders setting aside mutation orders in favor of the petitioner, claiming actual possession of the land. The respondent contested the delay in filing the proceedings against the mutations, citing the land's classification as an orchard.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the orders setting aside the mutation orders and dismissing the revision petition, finding that respondent No.4 had locus standi to challenge the mutations and that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned based on plausible reasoning. It also affirmed the finding that the land in question was an orchard based on the record.
Issues: Locus standi of respondent No.4, condonation of delay in filing the appeal, and classification of the land as an orchard were the key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review, upheld the condonation of delay based on sufficient cause, and affirmed the finding of the land's classification as an orchard based on the record.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be without merit and dismissed accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
(Through Virtual Mode)
1. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the ADC/Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Budgam and order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he has all along been in actual physical and cultivating possession of land measuring 1 kanal, 3 1/2 marlas comprised in khasra No. 2100/536 of village Beerwah. After coming into force of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') mutation bearing No. 2511 dated 20.08.1989 came to be attested in favour of the petitioner in terms of Section 4 of the Act thereby conferring prospective ownership rights of the land in question in her favour. Vide Mutation bearing no. 2728 dated 01.08.1991, exclusive ownership rights of the aforesaid land was conferred in favour of the petitioner in terms of Section 8 of the Act after he had deposited the requisite levy in respect of the said land.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that after a lapse of more than 21 years, respondent No. 4 without any locus standi filed an appeal against the mutation orders bearing No. 2511 dated 20.08.1989 and 2728 dated 01.08.1991 before Joint Agrarian Commissioner, Srinagar. The appeal was allowed by the said Authority vide its order dated 08.10.2011 and the aforesaid mutation orders were set aside. The said order came to be challenged by the petitioner before respondent No.1. Vide its order dated 20.06.2013, respondent No.1 set aside the order dated 08.10.2011 and remanded the case back to the Agrarian Commissioner, Budgam for disposal in accordance with law. The said Authority vide its order dated 08.11.2014 decided the issue of limitation in favour of respondent No.4 and thereafter vide its order dated 29.07.2015, respondent No. 2 reiterated the order dated 08.10.2011 passed by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Srinagar. The said order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of revision petition before respondent No.1. Vide its order dated 31.10.2017, respondent No.1, while upholding the order regarding setting aside of aforesaid mutation orders, dismissed the revision petition.
4. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the petitioner has challenged order dated 29.07.2015 passed by respondent No.2 as also the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by respondent No.1 on the grounds that order dated 08.11.2014, where by the application for condonation of delay was allowed, has been passed by respondent No.2 without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; that respondent No.4, at whose instance the mutation orders in question have been subjected to challenge, has no locus standi; that the observation of respondent No.1 that the petitioner had not challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 on the issue of limitation is contrary to the record which shows that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 has been passed in a mechanical manner; that respondent No.1, while passing the impugned order, has failed to notice that in the order dated 20.08.1989 whereunder the Mutating Officer has attested the mutation under Section 4 of the Act, had in terms of Rule 4 of Agrarian Reforms Rules, 1977 (for short 'Rules of 1977') made necessary correction in the records so as to bring the revenue record in consonance with the spot position thereby changing the kind of land from orchard to 'Maidani' and that the ex-owner of the land did not challenge the mutations in question, but the same were challenged by respondent No.4 after a lapse of 21 years without any right or justification.
5. Respondent No.4 has contested the petition by filing her reply wherein, after giving the factual background of the litigation that has taken place between her and the petitioner, she has contended that the revenue extracts of year 1966 fortify the fact that the land in question was orchard, as such, the provisions of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 are
The court emphasized the importance of condoning delay in filing appeals and upheld the decision to set aside mutations based on fraud.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that belated appeals without sufficient cause can be rejected, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in exercising revisional power is limited.
The court emphasized that findings based on incorrect co-sharer status and unjustified delay in appeals led to a miscarriage of justice, allowing the appeal and setting aside previous orders.
Limited scope of judicial review in correcting errors of jurisdiction and manifest errors apparent on the face of the proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the court to consider the aspects of limitation and the effect of a compromise decree on mutation orders under the Land Reve....
Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument obtained through fraud is void.
The court established that actual possession and the integrity of the mutation process are critical in determining tenancy rights and prospective ownership under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.
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
