A statutory authority cannot revoke its own orders unless expressly permitted by the statute, and disputes regarding property title must be resolved in appropriate proceedings.

Headnote:
(A) J&K Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restrain on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 - Section 3 - Alienation of property - Permission granted for alienation of land was kept in abeyance by the authority, declaring any transaction null and void - Authority lacked jurisdiction to revoke permission after it was granted and executed - The petitioners challenged the order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to hear them. (Paras 1, 5, 16, 20)

(B) Jurisdiction of statutory authority - A statutory authority cannot review or revoke its orders unless expressly conferred by the statute - The authority must limit its enquiry to the conditions prescribed under the Act. (Paras 12, 16)

(C) Interlocutory orders - An interlocutory order does not provide grounds for appeal under the Act, thus allowing for writ jurisdiction to be invoked. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an order keeping the permission for alienation of land in abeyance, claiming it was issued without jurisdiction and without hearing them. The land was claimed by a migrant, while another party asserted it was defense property.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the authority acted beyond its jurisdiction in revoking the permission and that the petitioners had no alternative remedy against the interlocutory order.

Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the authority to revoke the permission and the nature of the order as interlocutory.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the authority could not revoke the permission granted for alienation as it lacked such power under the Act, and the dispute over property title must be resolved in appropriate proceedings.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have, primarily called in question order No.1876-DIVK of 2012 dated 07.05.2012 issued by respondent No.2, whereby permission bearing No.1828 DIVK of 2012 dated 28.01.2012 granted by the said respondent for alienation of land measuring 6 kanals and 14 marlas under Survey No. 499 along with a single storied house situated at Magarmal Bagh Nursingh Garh, Srinagar, in terms of Section 3 of J&K Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restrain on Distress Sales) Act 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1997”) has been kept in abeyance and it has been further provided that any transaction made by the seller/attorney holder in respect of aforesaid property pursuant to the permission dated 28.01.2012 (supra) established deemed as null and void.

2. The facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties are that respondent No.5, who is a migrant as defined under the Act of 1997, executed an Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 25.06.2010 thereby empowering petitioner No.2 to do all acts and things in respect of immovable property comprising single storied residential house together with land measuring 6 kanals and 14 marlas under Khasra No.499 situated at Magarmal Bagh, Nursing Garh Srinagar. Petitioner No.2, the Attorney, was further authorized to obtain permission for alienation of the aforesaid Page No. 3 of 12 land in terms of the provisions contained in Act of 1997. It appears that the petitioners approached respondent No.2 for accord of permission for alienation of the aforesaid land and during the enquiry, respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Srinagar, recommended the case for accord of requisite permission under the Act of 1997 for alienation of the aforesaid immovable property. On the recommendations of respondent No.3, respondent No.2, in exercise of his powers under Section 3 of the Act of 1997, issued order No. 1828-DIVK of 2012 dated 28.01.2012, thereby according permission to respondent No.5 to alienate the aforesaid immovable property.

3. Pursuant to accord of permission in terms of order dated 28.01.2012 (supra) a registered sale deed was executed by respondent No.5 through his attorney holder in favour of petitioner No.1 on 2nd March 2012 in respect of land measuring 3 kanals 14 marlas out of the land which is subject matter of permission dated 28.01.2012(supra).

4. It seems that respondent No.6 approached respondent No.3 with a claim that the land in respect of which permission dated 28.01.2012 (supra) has been granted is defence land and they made a request for removal of encroachment on the said land. On the basis of the said claim of respondent No.6, respondent No.3 addressed a communication dated 07.04.2012 to respondent No.2 whereby a request was made that in order to sort out the issue, the sale permission, if not granted so far, may be put on hold till clear picture emerges as the mutations attested and upheld by various authorities are required to be looked into again. On the basis of the said Page No. 4 of 12 recommendation of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 issued the impugned order dated 07.05.2012 whereby permission granted for alienation of the property in question in terms of order dated 28.01.2012 (supra) has been kept in abeyance and it has been provided that any transactions made in respect of the property in question consequent upon aforesaid permission shall be deemed as null and void. It has been further provided in the order that detailed investigation shall be carried out by Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, before the matter is processed further.

5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned action of the official respondents on the grounds that the impugned order has been passed at the back of the petitioners without hearing them. It has been contended that respondent No.2 does not have any jurisdiction and power to keep the permission granted for alienation of the property in question in abeyance or to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document