Back
RAHUL BHARTI
Shabir Hussain Bhat – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAHUL BHARTI, J.
1. This writ petition, co-incidentally, presents a situation which this court cannot afford to let go unattended except at the cost of extending the continuing failure of administration of justice taking place by the stand-still approach of the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal viz-a-viz the pending revision petitions under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 in the wake of coming into operation of the amendment with respect to Section 21(2) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 w.e.f. 26/10/2020 whereby the provision providing the remedy of revision which used to be cognizable by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal has been deleted to be no more a remedy available under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.
2. Indulgence of this court, on suo moto notice, is warranted to put into place corrective command for the consumption of and compliance by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal which otherwise has put itself on mode of abdication of adjudication of the pending revision petitions filed under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 leaving the litigants in a lurch.
3. In fact, this court has come to be taken by repulsion on finding the writ petitioners to challenge through
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 established that restoration proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are valid despite the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing jurisdictional competence and subs....
The right to avail the remedy of revision under Section 333 of the Act of 1950 survives the repeal of the Act of 1950 and, therefore, the revision is maintainable.
The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long del....
The court ruled that while the Revenue Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to act suo motu, the Joint Collector's revisional powers were valid in addressing fraudulent claims over government land.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide jurisdiction of the Collector under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1971 to examine the regularity, correctness, legality, or propriety of any decision....
The court upheld the jurisdiction of revenue authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, affirming their findings on land ownership and possession as valid and within their competen....
The court established that under the amended Sec. 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, a second revision application is not maintainable once a revision has been exercised, emphas....
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
