Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 641 (JK)

Wali Mohammad Mir v. State and ors

2011-11-18

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2011
JUDGMENT Honble Mr. Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar, Judge 1. Dispute arose between petitioner and private respondent in respect of land measuring 4 Kanals and 12 Marals covered by survey No. 241 min situated at village Laddo. The land has been recorded in the name of respondent No.4 U/S 4 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act of 1976 (for short Act of 1976) for reason that the respondent No.4 have been in possession of the said land as tenant from year 1971. 2. Appeal was filed against the said order before Dy. Commissioner Pulwama, who is Designated Appellate Authority, under the Act of 1976. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the appellant made a statement that the land which is in possession of respondent No.4 was exchanged with him by the appellant, and that the land which is in possession of the appellant, has not been reflected in the revenue records. The Appellate Authority on the basis of the statement so made by the petitioner dismissed the appeal and directed him to file appropriate application for getting entries in the revenue records corrected. 3. It is this order which is called in question in this writ petition. 4. Heard ld counsel for parties. Considered the matter. 5. Mr. B.A. Rather ld counsel, for petitioner, submitted that the land in question is Saffron land and does not come within the ambit of Act of 1976. Ld counsel further submitted that exchange of immovable property has to take place in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act. Ld counsel further submitted that order impugned being without jurisdiction merits to be quashed. 6. Mr. M. Amin Khan ld counsel, for respondent No.4, submitted that the land in question is covered by the provisions of the Act of 1976 and respondent No.4 having been in possession of the said land from year 1971 it is for this reason that the order on mutation under Section 4 of the Act of 1976 has been passed in his favour. Ld counsel submitted that this petition merits dismissal as disputed question of fact have been raised. 7. The Act of 1976 was brought into existence, to extinguish relationship between landlord and tenant. The scheme was formulated under the Act of 1976 itself as to how and in which manner this relationship should come to an end. Ld counsel submitted that this petition merits dismissal as disputed question of fact have been raised. 7. The Act of 1976 was brought into existence, to extinguish relationship between landlord and tenant. The scheme was formulated under the Act of 1976 itself as to how and in which manner this relationship should come to an end. In order to get the benefit of Section 4 and 8 or even Section 12 of the Act of 1976 it has to be first established that there was relationship between parties of that of landlord and tenant. A tenant who was in possession of the land in Kharif 1971 and was paying rent to the landlord would be entitled to get the benefit under the provisions of Act of 1976 which would include the benefits that would flow from Section 4 and 8 of the said Act. 8. Nothing is brought on record to show that there was relationship between landlord and tenant (petitioner and respondent No.4). Action initiated by revenue agencies under the Agrarian Reforms Act in the facts and circumstances of this case was unwarranted in law. The orders under the provisions of Act of 1976 passed by the revenue authorities are without jurisdiction. The order impugned in this petition in view of the aforesaid discussions is held to be without jurisdiction. 9. For the above stated reasons, this petition is disposed of and by issuance of writ of certiorari the order dated 13.02.2010 is quashed. The quashment of order, however, shall not result in dispossession of respondent No.4 until such time orders for eviction in accordance with law are passed by competent authority.