Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 89 (JK)

Lal Chand v. State Of J. &K.

2001-04-18

R.C.GANDHI

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners by means of this petition are seeking to quash impugned order dated 1-9-98 passed by Respondent No. 2, in Revision Petition filed against order dated 19.07.94 of the Director, Land Records with Powers of Agrarian Reforms, whereby he has upheld the order passed in mutation No. 916 dated 15-10-94. The subject matter of dispute is mutation No. 916 dated 15-10-94 attested by the Tehsildar Hira Nagar in favour of the petitioners in respect of land comprising Survey No. 1709 measuring 2 kanals 19 marlas and Survey No. 1710 measuring 4 marlas situated in village Nonath Tehsil Hira Nagar, District Kathua. The original mutation was attested on 8-6-96 declaring the respondents herein as prospective owners under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. This mutation was challenged in appeal before Director Land Records with powers of Agrarian Reforms, Jammu. The mutation was set-aside, remanding the matter back to the Tehsildar for fresh inquiry and to pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties. The Tehsildar after hearing the parties has passed the impugned mutation. 2. This mutation has been challenged on the ground that respondents were cultivating the land in Kharief 1971 and Girdawari entries are recorded in the revenue record, against the record. This has been stated on the ground that Girdawaries of the respondents have been recorded from 1974 onwards upto 1978. The Tehsildar during inquiry recorded the statements of witnesses produced by both the parties and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were in cultivating possession of the land throughout and particularly in Kharief 1971. This order has been confirmed and upheld by the Director Land Records, respondent No. 3 in appeal vide his order dated 26.04.1996. 3. Having not satisfied, the respondents preferred revision petition against theorder dated 26.04.1996. Respondent No. 2 has set-aside the mutation on the ground that he himelf examined and appreciated the statements of witnesses, Girdawaries recorded in the revenue record by the revenue agency, which according to him have not been explained by the mutating officer. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents is not present, perused the orders passed by the respondents including the impugned order. The reasoning recorded by the Tribunal that the Tehsildar has not gone into the fact and explained the Girdawaries recorded in favour of the respondents, therefore, the matter needs de-novo inquiry, is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the respondents is not present, perused the orders passed by the respondents including the impugned order. The reasoning recorded by the Tribunal that the Tehsildar has not gone into the fact and explained the Girdawaries recorded in favour of the respondents, therefore, the matter needs de-novo inquiry, is not sustainable. Perusal of the mutation order reveals that Tehsildar has looked into and taken case of this aspect and on the basis of the evidence of statement of witnesses has come to the conclusion that the petitioners were in physical cultivating possession of the land and particularly in Kharief 1971. 5. The Tribunal was not required to appreciate the statement of witnesses while deciding a revision petition which has its own parameters of jurisdiction of Revisional Court. The Revisional Court has not recorded any finding that the mutation is based either on no evidence or is a case of perverse order to assume jurisdiction to look into the legal aspect of failure of justice. Therefore, the Revisional Court was not justified to appreciate the statements of witnesses. 6. The dispute has been remanded twice. The Tehsildar has conducted thorough inquiry and where there is no scope to hold de-novo inquiry, there must be an end to such approach and the litigation between the parties needs to be settled finally. The tribunal was exercising revisional powers and it was not within the province of the Tribunal to revise the order, unless some substantial question of law is involved. Perusal of the impugned order reveals no justification for such de-novo inquiry. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any sustainable ground to uphold the impugned order directing de-novo inquiry. The order of the tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the order of the Director Land Records is maintained.