Back
SANJEEV KUMAR
Des Raj – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir, through the Secretary Revenue – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners are aggrieved and have assailed an order dated 28th April, 2004 passed by the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu[‘the Tribunal”] in file No.210 (Revision) titled Jia Lal and another v. Des Raj and others, whereby the order of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Udhampur dated 2nd July, 2001 and those of Additional Tehsildar, Udhampur passed on Mutation No.178, 324 and 351 dated 15th May, 1974, 29th March, 1991 and 14th September, 1991 respectively have been set aside.
Factual Matrix
2. Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 [“private respondents”] were the owners of the land in dispute, however, the petitioners herein had been shown in cultivating possession thereof long prior to kharief 1971. The petitioners also claim to be in cultivating possession of the said land in kharief 1971 and thereafter. The Additional Tehsildar [“Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur]” attested mutation Nos.178 dated 15th May, 1974 under Section 4 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 [“the Act”] to vest the land in question in State and declared the petitioners prospective owners. As a consequence thereof, mutation Nos. 324 and 352 dated 29.03.19
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction must be within a reasonable time, and that mutation does not confer title to the property.
: Mutation – When no limitation is prescribed for filing a revision petition, same must be filed within a reasonable time.
The court emphasized the importance of condoning delay in filing appeals and upheld the decision to set aside mutations based on fraud.
The court emphasized the importance of proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the need for valid mutations in land disputes.
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.
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.
The deletion of a provision in a statute does not extinguish pending rights or remedies; the right to revision under Section 21(2) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 is substantive and must be respect....
The court emphasized that the order of mutation neither confers nor extinguishes any right of the parties over the land and that the purpose of mutation is only to collect government revenue from a p....
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
