The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of demarcation and identification of land as a condition precedent for invoking Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act, and the power of the revenue officer to reinstate a party dispossessed under Section 94.

JUDGMENT :

1. Order of Deputy Commissioner, Budgam bearing No. DCB/SQ/2001/F-916/10037, dated 08.01.2021 is subject matter of challenge in this petition filed by the petitioner invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 8 to 10 pertains to land measuring 3 kanals falling under Survey No. 318 (1 kanal-10 marlas) and Survey No. 319 (1 kanal and 10 marlas) situated in estate Watadooru Galwanpora Tehsil Budgam. Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 claim that they have purchased land measuring 3 kanals, 1 kanal 10 marlas falling under Khasra No. 319 min khewat No. 56 and 1 kanal 10 marlas falling in Khasra No. 318 min khewat No. 37 situated at Watadooru Galwanpora Tehsil Budgam from vendors, namely Shaban Bhat, Gafar Bhat and Mohammad Wani through sale deeds executed on 7 th October, 1993 and 7 th September, 1993 respectively. In the first round of litigation, respondent Nos. 8 to 10 [hereinafter “private respondents”] preferred OWP No. 1454/2018, which was disposed of by this Court on 3rd August, 2018 granting liberty to the private respondents to approach the revenue authorities for demarcation of land in question. It appears that the private respondents were not handed over the possession of their land aforementioned and, therefore, they filed WP(C) No. 3095/2019 seeking, inter alia, a direction to the official respondents herein to hand over the possession of land measuring 3 kanals falling under Khasra Nos. 318 and 319 khewat Nos. 37 and 54 respectively situated at Watadooru Galwanpora.

3. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by holding that the documents purported to be the demarcation report relied upon by the private respondents did not demarcate and identify the land held by the private respondents. Learned Single Bench proceeded to hold that in the absence of proper identification and demarcation of the land held by the private respondents, it would not be possible for the competent authority to exercise powers under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on 09.12.2019, which was challenged by the private respondents herein by way of LPA No. 321/2019. The LPA Bench allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 22.06.2020 and issued following directions:-

“(i) Respondent No. 3-Deputy Commissioner, Budgam shall ensure proper identification and demarcation of the land of the appellants positively within a period of one month from the judgment.

(ii) Upon preparation of such a demarcation report, the competent revenue officer would consider the request of the appellants (private respondents herein) by passing a speaking order thereon strictly in terms of Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act.”

4. It, thus, transpires that the Deputy Commissioner considered the matter in light of the directions issued by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 22.06.2020 passed in LPA No. 321/2019 and passed a speaking order, which is impugned in this petition. In the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has, though, found that in the absence of shajra kat of the subject land prepared and available, existing location of the piece of land falling in Khasra Nos. 318 and 319 is quite difficult to be demarcated. The Deputy Commissioner also concluded that as per spot position/demarcation conducted by the team of revenue officers, land under Survey Nos. 318, 319 and 320 is in possession of the petitioners and one Bashir Ahmad Mir as per the following breakup:-

5. The Deputy Commissioner also found that the petitioner had purchased 2 kan