Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 367 (JK)

Behari Lal v. Guran Ditta

2008-09-30

Vinod Gupta

body2008
1. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 28.1.2008 passed by the Director, Land Records Jammu, with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu whereby he has set aside the revenue entry recorded in favour of the petitioner by Naib Tehsildar, Bishnah and directed the Tehsildar, Bishnah to restore the possession prevailing before 2001 and holding a fresh enquiry on spot and made correction in revenue records besides initiating disciplinary action against the erring Naib Tehsildar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Guran Ditta filed an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari pertaining to land comprising Khasra Nos: 297/33,311/100,312/100,312/100,320/146 and 147 measuring 42 kanals 4 marlas situated at village Chak Jaralan,Tehsil Bishnah. It is also asserted that the Naib-Tehsildar Bishnah without conducting any spot inspection changed the Khasra Girdawari of the above said land on Fard Badar in violation of circular issued by the Financial Commissioner, J&K Jammu although petitioner is still in possession of land. On this application, the Learned Director Land Records after making enquiry set aside the entry recorded by the Naib-Tehsildar, Bishnah and directed the Patwari Halqa to restore the original possession which existing prior to 9.2.2001. The Learned Director also directed Tehsildar, Bishnah for holding a fresh enquiry on spot after affording sufficient opportunities of being heard to all the interested parties including all bothers of the respondent Guran Ditta in presence of prominent citizens of locality. It was also ordered to initiate disciplinary action against erring Naib-Tehsildar. 3. The petitioner challenged the correctness of the impugned order of Learned Director Land Records, Jammu by way of this revision petition on the ground that the order has been passed without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice. 4. I have heard the Learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record on the file. 5. A preliminary objection has been raised by the Learned counsel for the respondent about the maintainability of this revision petition. He has argued that no revision lies before the Tribunal against the order under Land Revenue Act. 4. I have heard the Learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record on the file. 5. A preliminary objection has been raised by the Learned counsel for the respondent about the maintainability of this revision petition. He has argued that no revision lies before the Tribunal against the order under Land Revenue Act. On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the Learned Director Land Records with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (Appeals) Jammu is without jurisdiction and he was not competent to entertain such application and he could hear only appeals under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. He could not assume jurisdiction on application. 6. The Learned Director Land Records, Jammu has passed the order on an application filed by the respondent for correction of revenue entry in the record. He is a Revenue Officer with a rank of Collector. Thus under Section 8 of the Land Revenue Act,1996 (1939 A.D.), he has General Superintendence and control over Revenue Officers working under him. Thus the order passed by the Director Land Records Jammu was under the provisions of Land Revenue Act and not under the Agrarian Reforms Act. There is no provision in the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 for correction of revenue entry for the period subsequent to the year 1971. Thus the impugned order has not been passed under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act but under the provisions of Land Revenue Act. 7. Under Section 3 of the J&K Special Tribunal Act, 1988 this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appeals, revisions or review petition which under any law lies to the Government or a Minister or any such appeals, revisions and review petitions for which law has been enacted by the legislatures. 8. From this provision, it is clear that this Tribunal shall exercise jurisdiction, power and authority to hear only such appeals, revisions and review petitions which are provided to the Government or a Minister under the Law where from that appeal, revision or review lies and also if specially empowered by the legislature in the law made after-wards. In the instant case, the order has been passed by the Director Land Records, Jammu on an application for correction of revenue entry in the records and this power lies under the provisions of Land Revenue Act. In the instant case, the order has been passed by the Director Land Records, Jammu on an application for correction of revenue entry in the records and this power lies under the provisions of Land Revenue Act. Section 11 of the Land Revenue Act empowers certain Revenue Officers for dealing appeals against the order passed by any subordinate officer. The highest forum for hearing such appeal is Financial Commissioner when the order is made by a Divisional Commissioner. Similarly under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act only the Financial Commissioner has been empowered to dispose of any revision petition against the order passed by any revenue officer under his control. The Divisional Commissioner has also been empowered to hear revision petition but his order shall be subject to the confirmation of Financial Commissioner. No power has been granted to the Minister, Government or this Tribunal to hear any such appeal or revision petition against the order passed by any revenue officer under the provision of Land Revenue Act, 1996 (1939 A.D.). 9. For the fore-going reasons, I would hold that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any revision against the order of correction of revenue entry passed by any revenue officer under the provision of Land Revenue Act, 1996 (1939 A.D.). Also the petitioner is not affected, in any way by the impugned order passed by the Director Land Records, Jammu because he has ordered the Tehsildar, Bishnah for holding fresh enquiry on spot after affording opportunities of being heard to all the interested parties including all brothers of parties in presence of prominent citizens of locality. The petitioner, if so advised, can approach the Tehsildar, Bishnah for redressal of his grievance or challenge the same in proper forum. 10. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. The record of the court below be sent back and file of this Tribunal be consigned to record after due completion.