Back
SANJEEV KUMAR
Parvesh Bahri – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu And Kashmir – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners are aggrieved of and have challenged order dated 21.05.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir at Srinagar, the prescribed authority under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immoveable Property ( Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, on an application/complaint titled Harish Bahri v. Abdul Rehman Mantoo and others. By virtue of the impugned order the Divisional Commissioner has held the respondent No.5 a 'migrant' within the meaning of the term defined under Section 2 (e) of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immoveable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 ( for short 'the Act' hereafter) and declared the alienation of the properties in Khasra Nos. 273 min, 274 min and 1015 min in contravention of the Act and the Rules framed there under. The Tehsildar Budgam, who is delegated the powers of Competent Authority under SO 144 dated 31st March, 2022, has been directed to take over the possession of the properties and handover the same to respondent No.5.
2. Briefly stated the facts, as are relevant to the disposal of the short controversy raised in this petition, are; the petitioner No.1
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....
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 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 ....
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.
Possession of migrant property without express consent and proper authorization is deemed unauthorized under the J&K Migrant Immovable Property Act.
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
