HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Reserved on : 28.11.2022

Pronounced on: 05.12.2022

OWP No. 1818/2014(O&M)

Garo and others

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate

Vs

Member, J&K Special Tribunal Jammu

and others

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1.

Brief facts of the present petition are that Jalla Ram was having four sons,

namely, Milkhi Ram, Prithi, Bhagoo and Bittan. In the year, 1981 Mutation

No. 355 under section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 (for short the

Act) was attested in favour of Jalla Ram, declaring him as prospective owner

of land measuring 7 kanals 9 marlas comprising khasra Nos. 330, 357 and

368 situated in Village, Tarlokpur, Tehsil and District Jammu. Thereafter, in

the year, 1988, a mutation bearing No. 442 was attested by the Tehsildar

Jammu under section 12 of the Act in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of

the petitioners i.e. Bittan with regard to land mentioned above, excluding two

other sons and one Devi Ditta s/o Bhagoo, as Bhagoo s/o of Jalla Ram had

already expired. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 3

to 5 i.e. Milkhi Ram, Prithi, Devi Ditta son of Bhagoo Ram i.e. respondent

Nos. 6&7 respectively filed an appeal against the order passed by Tehsildar

2 OWP No. 1818/2014

Jammu dated 12.02.1988 thereby attesting the mutation of the

abovementioned land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the

petitioners under section 12 of the Act. The said appeal was accompanied by

an application for seeking condonation of delay. The appellate authority i.e.

Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner (with the powers of Commissioner

Agrarian Reforms, Jammu) vide order dated 03.04.2002 dismissed the said

appeal. The said order was impugned by the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 before

the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu i.e. respondent No. 1. The

learned Tribunal accepted the said revision and vide order dated 24.06.2014,

set aside the order dated 03.04.2002. Both mutations attested under sections

4 and 12 of the Act (supra) bearing Nos. 355 and 442 respectively were set

aside and matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar concerned for

appropriate action.

2.

The petitioners being aggrieved of the order dated 24.06.2014 have filed the

instant petition inter alia on the grounds that the learned Tribunal has not

considered the issue of limitation at all and further that the learned Tribunal

has not considered the fact that Bittan S/o Jalla Ram i.e. the predecessor-in-

interest of the petitioners constituted the joint family with late Jalla Ram and

respondent Nos. 3 to 7 constituted an entirely separate family.

3.

Response stands filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, wherein the answering

respondents have supported the order passed by the learned Tribunal,

respondent No. 1 and have categorically pleaded that Bittan, Milkhi Ram,

Prithi and Devi Ditta being his sons and grandson as the case may be, were

successors-in-interest of Jalla Ram and they were/are entitled to hold the

land in equal shares under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act and

3 OWP No. 1818/2014

section 67 of the Tenancy Act. It is also stated that the learned Tribunal was

correct in setting aside the Mutation No. 355 as the same was based upon

factual inaccuracy.

4.

Mr. Rohit Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that

the learned Tribunal has not considered the issue of limitation and further

that other sons of Jalla Ram i.e. Milkhi Ram, Prithi and grandson Devi Ditta

S/o. Bhagoo constituted a separate family whereas the predecessor-in-

in