Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJNESH OSWAL, J
Kuldeep Raj – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the Mutation No.369 dated 26.06.1991 attested under section 7 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 recorded in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 2-Dr. Neeraj Sharma by the respondent No. 7. It is stated that aggrieved of the aforementioned mutation, the father of the petitioner had preferred an appeal before respondent No. 11 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.04.1994 and thereafter, order dated 10.04.1994 was assailed through the medium of revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu-respondent No. 12 herein, but the revision petition was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 15.05.1998.
2. It is stated that the grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Thotha Ram was the tenant in respect of the land comprising khasra No. 50 min measuring 8 kanals situated at Village Agore Tehsil Jammu. After the demise of the father of the petitioner namely Fiso Ram on 19.12.2022, the petitioner and his mother Parsino Devi, brother and sister stepped in to the shoes of Fiso Ram being his legal heirs and the petitioner has been appointed as attorney by his mother, brother and si
A petitioner cannot pursue a new writ petition regarding land already contested in previous legal actions, emphasizing the need for resolution of prior matters.
Limited scope of judicial review in correcting errors of jurisdiction and manifest errors apparent on the face of the proceedings.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review, the application of the law of limitation with full rigour, and the importance of considering the circumstances and record in condoning de....
Writ court cannot question validity of unchallenged final prior mutations on tenancy surrender while reviewing tribunal order upholding them against later agrarian reform conferment.
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised where an alternative remedy exists, especially in cases involving disputed facts.
Extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and can be denied due to unreasonable delay in seeking relief.
The finality of mutations under the Agrarian Reforms Act, the requirement to challenge the attestation of mutations, and the invalidity of creating tenancy after May 1973 as per section 13 of the 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
