Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 24 (JK)

Yashpal Singh v. Sham Lal

2011-02-03

Sanjay Gupta

body2011
1. Petitioner has challenged the enquiry report of Deputy Commissioner Jammu dated 5-11-09,by virtue of which Deputy Commissioner Jammu has held that, mutation no. 35 u/s 3A of agrarian reform act has been attested, without adopting the due procedure prescribed under law. 2. Petitioner has challenged the enquiry report to this aspect, on the grounds, that order is bad in law and order intends to interfere to block the adjudication by authority under law. That impugned order is under no provision of law. That petitioner, whose interest has ultimately been affected by order, was not associated with enquiry. That petitioner is genuine allottee of land. 3. Heard, and perused the impugned order and record of Deputy Commissioner. 4. Brief facts as is emerging from the file is that, petitioner herein being refugee of 1947 was allotted some land but not as per scale of his entitlement. That petitioner approached the concerned authority for getting deficiency of land and land was identified which was under occupancy tenancy and fell under kh. no. 250 measuring 14 marls, kh. no. 251, 10 M. kh. no 252, 9 Marla 253, 9 marla, kh. no 254, 12 marla and, kh. no 255, 7 marla situated at kotli shah dolla tehsil R.S. Pura. That Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar concerned, accordingly attested the mutation no. 35 under section 3-A of Agrarian Reforms Act, in favour of petitioner. 5. It appears from the perusal of impugned order of Deputy Commissioner that, MLA Suchet Garh and MLA R.S. Pura, filed a written complaint before Revenue Minister for conducting inquiry with regard to this mutation. This complaint was forwarded to Deputy Commissioner Jammu and he on 30-09-09 appointed Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Adm.) as enquiry officer to investigate to the contents of the complaint. After preliminary inquiry conducted by ADC Jammu, he submitted a report to Deputy Commissioner on 27-10-09. After receiving of inquiry report Deputy Commissioner passed order on 5-11-09, which is impugned in this revision. The petitioner is aggrieved of only following observation mentioned in impugned order:- Whereas, from the perusal of the Preliminary Enquiry report, it is prima-facie established that Sh. Vinod Kumar, Patwari halqa Kotli Shah Daula Tehsil R.S. Pura has entered the mutation no. 35 without adopting the due procedure prescribed, under law. The petitioner is aggrieved of only following observation mentioned in impugned order:- Whereas, from the perusal of the Preliminary Enquiry report, it is prima-facie established that Sh. Vinod Kumar, Patwari halqa Kotli Shah Daula Tehsil R.S. Pura has entered the mutation no. 35 without adopting the due procedure prescribed, under law. Dated 5-11-2009 Sd/- Deputy Commissioner, Jammu Counsel for petitioner has argued that, this part of order will certainly effect his right to property given to him vide mutation no 35 attested under section 3 A of act. 6. Bare perusal of above said extract of order passed by Deputy Commissioner Jammu, it is evident that it is only an observation, that mutation has wrongly been attested without adopting due course of law. Agrarian reform act 1976 is a special legislation formulated for transferring the land to tiller, who was cultivating land in kharif 1971. This act provides complete procedure and officers competent to deal with land defined in act. It is complete code. Provision of this act and rules made thereon, override other law or custom or usage, in view of section 32 of act, on the matter mentioned in act .Sections 18 of agrarian reform Act prescribes certain classes of officers for the purpose of this Act. These includes Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Collector, Assistant Commissioner, Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar. These are officers who are competent to deal with the matter pertaining to land defined under Agrarian Reforms Act. Any finding given or order passed by any officer mentioned herein, if not challenged it becomes final and bind parties. 7. So any observation made or order passed by an officer who is not mentioned in section 18 of Act, has no force of law. Deputy Commissioner is no where mentioned in section 18 of the Act as officer appointed to deal with the matter, so his observation is not binding between parties. 8. In present case, unless and until mutation u/s 3-A is not set aside by a competent officer appointed under the Agrarian Reforms Act, it will remain legal and correct. 9. Perusal of file reveals that, there is photo copy of order of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Jammu dt 27.10.09, which reveals that, an appeal has been filed by the respondent no. 1 against petitioner and respondent 2 to 4 herein, with respect to mutation no.35 dt. 13.7.09, attested u/s 3A of act. 9. Perusal of file reveals that, there is photo copy of order of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Jammu dt 27.10.09, which reveals that, an appeal has been filed by the respondent no. 1 against petitioner and respondent 2 to 4 herein, with respect to mutation no.35 dt. 13.7.09, attested u/s 3A of act. 10. In view of what has been discussed above, it is held that any officers under act, while deciding the matter, shall not be prejudiced by any finding given by Deputy commissioner in his order dt. 5.11.2009. 11. This petition is disposed of accordingly. Record file be sent back along with this order. File be consigned to records after due completion.