Back
2025 Supreme(J&K) 49
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Gulaba Chand and another - Appellant
Vs.
UT of J&K and others - Respondents
WP(C) No. 1755 OF 2024, CM No. 4296 OF 2024
Decided On :
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Mr. G. S. Thakur, Advocate
A will executed under the Agrarian Reforms Act is invalid if it contravenes the Act's provisions, leading to unauthorized possession being declared null.
Headnote:
(A) Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 - Sections 8, 15, and 28(A) - Dispute over ownership of land following the execution of a will and lease deed - The will and lease deed were declared null and void by the civil court, leading to unauthorized possession by the petitioners - The appellate authority upheld the respondent's right to inherit 2/3rd of the estate left by the deceased. (Paras 1, 8, 10, 12)
(B) Legal Standing - A litigant cannot change their position at different stages of litigation for personal benefit - The court emphasized the principle of estoppel and the need for consistent legal arguments. (Paras 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The case involves a dispute over land ownership following the death of Anantu, who executed a will in favor of Pyar Chand. The will was challenged by Anantu's daughter, leading to a series of legal proceedings that declared the will and lease deed null and void. The respondent was found entitled to inherit a share of the estate.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming that the petitioners' possession was unauthorized following the declaration of the will and lease deed as null and void.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the will and lease deed, the rightful inheritance of the land, and the petitioners' legal standing to challenge the orders of the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the will and lease deed were invalid, affirming that the respondent was entitled to her inherited share of the estate, and emphasized that litigants must maintain consistent positions throughout legal proceedings.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and will dispute (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioners' grounds for quashing (Para 2) |
| 3. respondent's objections (Para 3) |
| 4. petitioners' reliance on previous judgment (Para 4) |
| 5. respondent's counter-arguments (Para 5) |
| 6. court's review of the case (Para 6) |
| 7. unauthorized possession ruling (Para 7) |
| 8. tribunal's findings (Para 8) |
| 9. invalidity of will and lease (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 10. dismissal of the petition (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
1. One Sh. Anantu was the owner of 26 Kanal 2 Marlas of land (13 Kanal 12 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 584 min and 12 Kanal 10 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 619/585 min) situated at village Dandote, Tehsil and District Udhampur. During his lifetime, he had executed one will on 20.02.1978, thereby transferring the land measuring 26 Kanal 2 Marlas in favour of Pyar Chand. Anantu died in the year 1985 leaving behind his wife, namely-Mst. Kesri and two daughters, namely-Shankari and Shanti, as his legal heirs. Pyar Chand executed a lease dated 14.10.1992 in respect of the above-mentioned land in favour of father of the petitioners, namely, Paras Ram. One daughter of deceased Anantu, namely, Mst. Shanti i.e. respondent No.4 filed a suit thereby challenging the will deed dated 20.02.1978 and also the lease deed dated 14.10.1992. Learned Munsiff, Udhampur vide its ex-parte judgment dated 31.07.1995 decreed the suit and declared the will deed as well as the consequent lease deed, as null and void, but did not grant the consequential relief of eviction of Paras Ram sought by the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 filed a suit for restoration of possession before the Assistant Revenue Commissioner (Assistant Settlement Officer), Udhampur under Section 27/19(3)(d) of Agrarian Reforms Act, for the land mentioned above and vide order dated 12.07.2016, the suit was dismissed with a direction that the land is liable to be escheated back to the State and the petitioners were allowed to remain in possession of the land. Being aggrieved of the order dated 12.07.2016, the respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur and vide order dated 28.03.2018, the appeal was accepted and the order passed by the Assistant Revenue Commissioner (Assistant Settlement Officer) Udhampur was set aside. It was held that the respondent No. 4 was entitled for restoration of the land to the extent of her inherited share in the said property. Being aggrieved of the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 01.05.2024.
2. The petitioners have now approached this Court through the medium of instant petition and have sought quashing of order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu and order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur on the following grounds:
i. That the Revenue Commissioner (Assistant Settlement Officer), Udhampur had rightly passed the order dated 12.07.2016 by virtue of which the suit for restoration of the subject land was dismissed with the direction that the land is liable to be escheated to the State and the petitioners were allowed to remain in possession thereof.
ii. That the order impugned is not based on true position of law because Anantu being the Absolute Owner (under Section 8 ) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 was not competent to sublet the property by way of will and in this view of legal position, the order impugned herein is incorrect.
iii. That as per Section 28(A) of Agrarian Reforms Act, read with Section 15 and Rule 57 of the Agrarian Reforms Rules, 1977, the subject land should have been escheated to the State and thereafter the provisions of Section 15 of the Act were to be applied and thereafter the petitioners should have been considered for allotment as per the other provisions of Agrarian Reforms Rules.
3. The contesting respond
