Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1620
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Rahul Bharti, J
S HARBHAJAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
U T OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPTT AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C) 3742 / 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinayak Phull
For the Respondents: Monika Kohli
The condition requiring prior government permission for the alienation of land under Govt. Order No. S-432 of 1966 is otiose and cannot be used as a ground to reject applications for the issuance of a fard-intikhab (abstract of title).
Headnote:(A) Revenue Law - Govt. Order No. S-432 of 1966 - Issuance of fard-intikhab (abstract of title) - Alienation of land - Condition for prior Government permission - The rider in Govt. Order No. S-432 of 1966 relating to the requirement of prior permission of the Government for making alienation has been held to be otiose. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of a plot of land based on a registered sale deed and a rectification deed, with the mutation subsequently attested. The petitioner applied for the issuance of a fard-intikhab (abstract of title) for sale purposes. The application was rejected by the revenue authorities, citing among other reasons that ownership had been conferred under a Government Order which required prior Government permission for any alienation of the land.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the revenue authorities failed to consider the settled legal position regarding the specific Government Order. It was observed that the condition regarding prior permission for alienation is no longer legally binding or applicable, and the authorities are bound by the judicial precedents established by the High Court on this point. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: Whether the application for the issuance of a fard-intikhab can be rejected on the basis of a requirement for prior Government permission for alienation as stipulated in Govt. Order No. S-432 of 1966.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement for obtaining prior Government permission for the alienation of land under Govt. Order No. S-432 of 1966 is otiose; therefore, revenue authorities cannot reject an application for the issuance of a fard-intikhab based on the absence of such permission. (Paras 9, 11)
Result: Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the Tehsildar to reconsider the application for issuance of fard-intikhab without being hedged by the condition of prior permission of the Government as mentioned in Govt. Order No. S-432 of 1966.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
revenue records
- fard-intikhab
- mutation
- sale deed
- rectification deed
-
writ jurisdiction
- maintainability
-
revenue records
-
administrative law
-
government orders
- interpretation and validity
-
revenue authorities
- powers and duties
-
government orders
-
constitutional law
- writ of mandamus
##PAGE1##
Supplementary List-II
Serial No. 179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 3742/2025
CM No. 8542/2025
Date of pronouncement : 29.12.2025
Uploaded on : 09.01.2026
S. Harbhajan Singh
….Petitioner
Through:- Mr. Vinayak Phull, Advocate.
V/s
UT of J&K & Ors.
…..Respondents
Through:- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
\
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
01. By virtue of a registered sale deed dated
04.04.2006 read with a registered rectification deed dated
29.05.2009, the petitioner claims to be the owner of one marla
of land comprised in khasra No. 1636, khata No. 426 and
khewat No. 137 of village Birpur, Bari-Brahmana purchased
from the erstwhile owner, namely, Muzafar Hussain S/o Din
Mohd. R/o Birpur tehsil Samba and district Jammu.
02. Said one marla plot of land of the petitioner
measures 20×13 and is bounded as per sale deed description
on the North side by premises of Ram Lal, on the South by
WP(C) No. 3742/2025 Page 1 of 4
##PAGE2##premises of Bodh Raj of Ram Lal, on the East by premises of
Ram Lal and on the West by Road.
03. At the site of said one marla plot of land, the
petitioner is said to have constructed a triple-story shop
structure.
04. With respect to the said sale deed read with
rectification deed, the petitioner got the mutation attested in
February, 2020, vide mutation No. 4550/Jeem dated
14.02.2020
05. The petitioner is said to have applied for issuance of
fard-intikhab (abstract of title) for sale purposes to the
Tehsildar, Bari-Brahmana vide application No.
22800109202522323848 on 01.09.2025 through online
mode.
06. Said application of the petitioner seeking issuance
of fard-intikhab (abstract of title), upon being processed, came
to suffer rejection on 17.11.2025 with reason of rejection
being that “As per the report of field staff, insufficient
documents uploaded, hence rejected”
07. One of the cited reasons of rejection from the end of
Naib Tehsildar, Bari-Brahmana is that ownership with respect
to khasra No. 1636 was conferred on erstwhile owners by
WP(C) No. 3742/2025 Page 2 of 4
##PAGE3##reference to Govt. Order No. S-432 of 1966 dated 03.06.1966
who were the then cultivators of the State land.
08. There are others reasons of rejection cited with
which for the time being this Court has nothing to do and it is
for the concerned revenue authorities/officials to deal with.
09. However, in so far as rejection reason related to fact
of effect of Govt. Order No. S-432 of 1966 is concerned, with
respect to that the position of law has come to be settled by
this Court in terms of judgment dated 31.05.2016 in OWP No.
982/2015 titled “Mohammad Akbar Shah & Ors. Vs State &
Ors” followed in subsequent judgments consistently by this
Court, whereby the rider in Govt. Order No. S-432 of 1966
related to the prior permission of the Government for making
alienation has been held to be otiose.
10. Thus, the Naib Tehsildar, Bari-Brahmana or for
that matter Tehsildar, Bari-Brahmana ought to have referred
themselves to be fully cognizant of the legal position as settled
by this Court which is equally and fully biding upon them and
in that light ought to have considered the petitioner’s
application for issuance of fard-intikhab so made free of any
hesitation/reluctance relating to the purported condition in
Govt. Order No. S-432 of 1966
WP(C) No. 3742/2025 Page 3 of 4
##PAGE4##11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of at its
very inception stage with a direction to the respondent No. 4 –
Tehsildar, Bari-Brahmana to reconsider the application of the
petitioner for issuance of fard-intikhab without being hedged
by the so called condition of prior permission of the
Government as mentioned in Govt. Order No. S-432 of 1966
12. In case, the petitioner does not suffer any other
factual or legal deficiency in terms of his application seeking
fard-intikhab, then the requisite fard-intikhab be issued in his
favour for the needful purpose as stated in the application.
13. Compliance to be carried out within 30 days from
the date of a certified
