Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 667 (JK)

Om Parkash v. Jugraj Singh

2009-12-21

A.K.Shan

body2009
1. In this revision petition order dated 3.1.2009 passed by respondent No: 4 setting aside the order dated 23.9.1982 passed on mutation No: 558 by respondent No: 6, has been sought to be set aside on variety of grounds. 2. During the pendency of this revision petition learned counsel for the respondent No: 1 pointed out that same is not maintainable. In support of his contention he placed on record the attested copies of mutation No: 558 dated 28.2.2009. Upon this learned counsel for the parties were heard. 3. Brief facts of the case for deciding the question of maintainability of this revision petition are as under:- 4. On 23.9.1982 mutation No:558 was attested under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act( here-in-after the Act ) declaring the father of the petitioners, Nanak Chand as prospective owner of the land under khasra number 362,364-min and again 364-min. Respondent Yograj Singh preferred an appeal against this mutation before Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu (here-in-after the Commissioner) after about 25 years on 3.8.2007 on the ground that he was not summoned before attesting the mutation as he was one of the co-owner of the land, besides other grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5. The said appeal was decided on 3.1.2002 and after setting aside the order passed on mutation No: 558, case was remanded to Tehsildar Vijaypur District Samba for conducting detailed enquiry. It is against this order petitioners have filed the present revision petition. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that after the receipt of case on remand, the Tehsildar Samba on 28.2.2009 passed fresh order for recording the names of ex-owners through father of respondent No: 1 Hari Singh as co-sharer in the khasra girdawari from Kharif 1971 onwards till date in respect of khasra numbers mentioned above. This order was passed in the presence of petitioners who also put their signature on the mutation. 7. Once the fresh mutation on remand was passed in presence of the petitioners on 28.2.2009, they had the remedy to file an appeal against this order before the Commissioner. Instead they filed this revision petition on 9.3.2009 challenging the order of remand passed by Commissioner on 3.1.2009. 8. Had the petitioners challenged the order of remand before attesting fresh mutation by Tehsildar on 28.2.2009, by filing a revision petition before this Tribunal the same could have been entertained and decided. Instead they filed this revision petition on 9.3.2009 challenging the order of remand passed by Commissioner on 3.1.2009. 8. Had the petitioners challenged the order of remand before attesting fresh mutation by Tehsildar on 28.2.2009, by filing a revision petition before this Tribunal the same could have been entertained and decided. But this has not been done by the petitioners. Their act of filing revision petition is just like putting a cart before the horse. Once the Tehsildar on remand of the case has passed fresh order and attested fresh mutation, this revision against the order of remand is not maintainable. 9. Accordingly this revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 10. Record of the court below be sent back and file of this Tribunal be consigned to record after due compilation.