Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 173 (JK)

Rajesh Suri v. Tara Chand

2002-05-25

S.K.GUPTA, T.S.DOABIA

body2002
1. Petitioners who figures as appellants in the appeal LPA No. 74/92, which came to be decided on 10.2.1999, seek review of the judgment. When the said appeal came to be decided the factual and legal position which was taken note of was as under:- (i) Tara Chand, Karam Chand, Anchal Ram, and Bala Ram sons of Charan Dass were treated as tenants in possession in Kharief 1971, and therefore held entitled to the benefits which are contemplated by sections 4,7 & 8 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. 2. The legal consequences which ensued on account of these two sections are:- (i) On account of the provisions contained in section 4 of the Act, all rights, title and interest in land of any person, not cultivating it personally in Kharief 1971, shall be deemed to have extinguished and vested in the State free from all encumbrances w.e.f. the first day of May, 1973. ii) The land vested in State is to be dealt with in terms of Section 2 of the Act. 3. The Learned Single Judge, who decided the appeal in the last para of the judgement concluded that the tenants in possession became entitled to the benefit of the Act of 1976. What is said is being reproduced below:- "On admitted facts, the tenants were in possession of the land involved in the matter in kharief 1971, therefore, by ficition of law created by section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, the land would vest in the State and the ex-owner would get exproprieted. The question of his being the owner of land on 20.2.1972 would not arise. There could be no relinquishment in favour of a person, who by operation of section 4 seized to be a proprietor/owner of the land." 4. Now a review petition has been preferred, it is submitted that Charan Dass, father of the respondents Tara Chand, Karam Chand, Anchal Ram and Bala Ram had by a deed of relinquishment relinquished his rights in favour of the appellants review petitioners. This happened on 18.7.1972. It is submitted that if there is a transfer of land between 1.9.1971 and 1.5.1973 then this was required to be taken note of. For this reliance is being placed on Sub Section 17 of Section 2 of the Act. 5. This happened on 18.7.1972. It is submitted that if there is a transfer of land between 1.9.1971 and 1.5.1973 then this was required to be taken note of. For this reliance is being placed on Sub Section 17 of Section 2 of the Act. 5. After having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that no case is made out of exercising the review jurisdiction. 6. On account of the provisions contained in section 4 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, all rights, title and interest in the land of any person not cultivating it personally in Kharief 1971 would be deemed to have extinguished and vested in the State free from all encumbrances with effect from the first day of May 1973; As the petitioners were not in possession in Kharief 1971 therefore, on account of the provisions contained in section 4, the land came to vest in the State free from all encumbrances. The Act of 1976 further confers right of resumption so far as ex-land lord is concerned, Section 8 confers a right in a person whose land has been resumed. The term ˜prospective owner™ has been described in section 2(14) and means a person eligible to be vested with the rights of an owner. When a person who gets benefits of section 7, then he is entitled to the benefit subject to the certain liabilities which are enumerated in section 28 of the Act. Section 28-A of the Act contemplates that a person who is vested with ownership right under the Act is not to transfer the land or rights therein in any manner whatsoever to any person other than the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. 7. We are of the opinion that Section 2(17) of the Act does not deal with a transfer which is made by the tiller in favour of a person whose rights are supposed to get extinguished as contained in section 4 of the Act of 1976. Provisions of Section 2(17) of the Act are to be read harmoniously. The Scheme of Agrarian Reforms Act is to divest the owner who is not in cultivating personally in Kharief 1971, of ownership rights and the land is to be vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Provisions of Section 2(17) of the Act are to be read harmoniously. The Scheme of Agrarian Reforms Act is to divest the owner who is not in cultivating personally in Kharief 1971, of ownership rights and the land is to be vested in the State free from all encumbrances. If the interpretation which is sought to be made is accepted, then this would amount to defeating the provisions of section 4 of the Act. Therefore, any alleged transfer made by the tiller in favour of a person whose rights are supposed to get extinguished on account of section 4, would not only defeat the provisions of section 4, but also defeat the spirit beyond the Agrarian laws. In view of the above, the interpretation sought to be placed by the petitioners can not be accepted. 8. Agrarian Laws were enacted with a view to help that section of the society, which was treated as down trodden. Therefore, if any attempt is made which would result in nullifying the provisions of the Agrarian Laws, then that attempt has necessarily to be scuttled. In the present case whatever ownership rights vested in the appellants/review petitioner came to an end on account of the provisions contained in section 4 of the Act of 1976, the land was supposed to vest in the State. Therefore, the Deed of Relinquishment on which much reliance has been placed would be of no assistance to the petitioners, This is because there is a clear mandate prohibiting the transfer of ownership rights, Therefore, the relinquishment deed which is in contravention of the provisions contained in section 28 and 28-A, of the Act could not be taken note of. 10. In view of the above, this review petition is disposed of accordingly.