Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
ARUN PALLI, C.J., RAJNESH OSWAL
Romesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
J&K Special Tribunal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
OSWAL, J.
1. With the appearance of Mr. D.R.Khajuria, learned Senior counsel along with assisting counsel on behalf of respondents 5 and 6, Caveat No. 2478/2025 shall stand discharged.
2. The Mutation No.225 in respect of the land measuring 4 kanals 8 marlas under Khasra No.242 situated at village Kallar Himmiti, Tehsil and District Udhampur was attested on 17.12.1981 by Tehsildar, Udhampur under Section 4 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act (for short- ‘the Act’) in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents, namely, Isher Lal. Another Mutation No.238 dated 21.12.1982 under Section 4 of the Act was also attested in favour of said Isher Lal in respect of the land measuring 11 Kanals 10 marlas comprising under Khasra No.225. Thereafter, Mutation No. 243 was attested under Section 8 of the Act by Tehsildar Udhampur on 23.02.1983 and the ownership rights were conferred upon said Isher Lal. Yet again another Mutation No. 311 dated 19.11.1986 was attested in favour of Isher Lal under Section 4 of the Act regarding land measuring 7 kanals comprising under Khasra No.225 and thereafter the ownership rights in respect of the same land were conferred
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 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....
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....
The decision on the validity of mutations in mutation proceedings does not affect the title to the property and is subject to the decree of a civil court.
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.
Limited scope of judicial review in correcting errors of jurisdiction and manifest errors apparent on the face of the proceedings.
A petitioner cannot pursue a new writ petition regarding land already contested in previous legal actions, emphasizing the need for resolution of prior matters.
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
