IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
M.A. CHOWDHARY, J.
Manjit Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State (now UT) of J. & K. & Ors. – Respondents
OWP No. 1293 Of 2012
Decided On : 22-12-2022
Writ Petition - Property Rights - J&K Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sale) Act, 1997 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir - 1937 Govt. Order No. 2365, 1981 Govt. Order No. Rev./NDK/248, 1984 Govt. Order No. Rev/NDK/106/84, 1985 Govt. Order No. Rev. NDK/34/85, 2009 Govt. Order No. 74-Rev/NPK
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought proprietary rights over a land in Jammu & Kashmir under the J&K Migrant Immovable Property Act, 1997. After protracted litigation, the petitioner obtained a judgment for grant of proprietary rights but faced delays in obtaining possession and making entries in revenue records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner and other respondents had become owners of the land in question and were entitled to entries in the revenue records as per the 2009 Govt. Order. The court issued a writ of mandamus commanding the Dy. Commissioner to make entries in the revenue records in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: Delay in obtaining possession and making entries in revenue records, abandonment of other reliefs by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had made out a case for issuance of a writ of mandamus based on the entitlement to proprietary rights and the delays faced in obtaining possession and making entries in revenue records.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Dy. Commissioner to make entries in the revenue records in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner through the medium of this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir prayed following reliefs:
II) Mandamus commanding the respondent not to allow any person or persons to raise any kind of construction, temporary or otherwise upon the aforesaid property, in any manner whatsoever.
III) Mandamus, commanding the respondents to make entries into the revenue records as per Government Order dated 08.07.2009.
IV) Mandamus commanding the respondents to make transfer of lease holding rights of the share of the petitioner’s brother Manjit Singh, in case there is any legal impediment of making transfer in favour of the legal heirs of the petitioner’s brother because of they being citizens of USA.
V) Mandamus commanding the respondents to give the vacant possession of the property of the petitioner to him as per the provisions of the J&K Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sale) Act, 1997 and thereafter the petitioner be allowed to make use of the aforesaid property by allowing him to raise the construction upon the aforesaid land, in accordance with law.
2. Petitioner has pleaded that after entering into protracted litigation, the Government of Jammu & Kashmir, finally issued an order bearing No. 74-Rev/NDK of 2009 dated 08.07.2009 by virtue of which proprietary rights of the Nazool land measuring 06 kanals 8 marlas and 212 Sft. Comprising of khasra No. 146 and 213/min situated at Bund, Srinagar initially leased out in favour of the petitioner’s father vide Govt. Order No. 2365 dated 02.09.1937 for a period of 40 years which was renewed from time to time. Petitioner claims to have become migrant because of disturbed conditions in the Kashmir Valley and he under J&K Migrant Immovable Property ( Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 is entitled to his property. Since the petitioner was involved in the litigation for purpose of getting the proprietary rights of the property, it appears that during this period certain persons had illegally and unauthorizedly entered into the property and had taken possession of certain portion thereof.
3. It has been further pleaded that in the meantime the petitioner obtained the judgment for grant of proprietary rights of the petitioner and he requested District Magistrate Srinagar and Divisional Commissioner Kashmir in this behalf, however despite depositing the amount before official respondents, he was not given proprietary rights, as such, he moved this petition.
4. Pursuant to notice respondents 7 to 9 have filed reply to this petition, wherein, it has been stated that the land has vested in equal shares between the petitioner and the legal heirs of his brother Inderjeet Singh. It is also stated that they were settled in United States of America and have obtained nationality and citizenship of that country and they are permanent resident of the J&K State (now UT of J&K). It is further stated that in terms of order dated 08.07.2009 proprietary rights in respect of land measuring 06 kanals, 08 marlas and 212 sqfts. Covered by survey Nos. 146 and 213/min situated in Estate Kothibagh, Srinagar have been granted in favour of the petitioner and answering respondents including Amarjeet Singh, another son of Inderjeet Singh in equal shares on payment of price equivalent to half of the market price of Rs. 18,00,000/- per kanals as was prevalent in the year 2000, when the judgment was passed by this Court. After issuance of order dated 08-07-2009, respondent No. 2 addresse
The entitlement to proprietary rights under the J&K Migrant Immovable Property Act, 1997 and the issuance of a writ of mandamus to enforce such rights.
The court ruled that claims for proprietary rights under a void act are unenforceable and emphasized the necessity for full candor in litigation.
The court upheld the proprietary rights of landowners conferred by historical orders, emphasizing the necessity of due process in land acquisition.
Point of Law : Tenant - Unauthorized occupation of Property - Possession of - Possession can be resumed by government only in a manner known to or recognised by law and it cannot resume possession ot....
The main legal point established is the requirement for registration of decrees creating new rights in immovable property and the prohibition on alienation of migrant property without following legal....
(1) Agreement to sell does not confer any title or ownership qua immovable property in favour of a person.(2) Agreement to sell does not confer any title or ownership qua immovable property in favour....
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 ....
Extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and can be denied due to unreasonable delay in seeking relief.
The District Magistrate has the authority to take possession of migrant property and evict unauthorized occupants under the Act of 1997.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.