Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 667 (JK)

Munshi Ram v. Karan Singh

2011-11-30

Sanjay Gupta

body2011
1. By virtue of this order, I propose to decide an application filled by one Harsh Gupta s/o Banarasi Gupta for becoming party as respondent in the main revision petition. 2. In the application, it has been stated that land measuring 21 Kanals and 15 Marlas under Khasra No. 691, Khata No. 76, Khewat No. 19 situated at Channi Himmat, Jammu was recorded in personal cultivation of one Balwan Singh, father of respondent Karan Singh and personal cultivation was duly attested by the authorities under A. R. Act. That in 1983, petitioner Munshi Ram challenged the said entry, before Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu, who set aside the order. Balwan Singh challenged the order before J&K Special Tribunal and Tribunal set aside the order of Commissioner Agrarian and remanded the case to ACR for fresh enquiry with regard to cultivating possession of land in Kharief 1971. 3. This order was challenged by Munshi Ram in writ petition, which was dismissed by Hon'ble Single Judge of High Court of J&K. The letter patent appeal filed by Munshi Ram was also dismissed with observation that mutating officer shall hold a detailed enquiry and shall pass a fresh order in light of order of Tribunal dated 29.8.1990 and 14.5.1999. That Balwan Singh was contesting the false claim of Munshi Ram of his cultivating possession in Kharief 1971, when Karan Singh might have not been born. 4. That after death of Balwan Singh, respondent, his mother and sisters executed a general power of attorney with respect to land in favour of Ramesh Chander Sharma. That on the basis of power of attorney which was registered on 6.6.2002, Ramesh Chander entered into an agreement to sell with regard to land measuring 20 Kanals for consideration of Rs. 2.30 crores, Rs. 40.00 lacs was received by Ramesh Chander as advance. This agreement was entered and executed on 2.11.2004. Respondent No. 1 started blackmailing the applicant to extract more money and he canceled the power of attorney executed by him, his mother and sister in favour of Ramesh Chander. 5. Thereafter a direct negotiation took place between applicant, Harsh Gupta and Karan Singh, who at that time had obtained a declaration decree from the court of 1st Civil Subordinate Judge, Jammu, that he is exclusively owner of land measuring 21 Kanals and 15 Marlas. 5. Thereafter a direct negotiation took place between applicant, Harsh Gupta and Karan Singh, who at that time had obtained a declaration decree from the court of 1st Civil Subordinate Judge, Jammu, that he is exclusively owner of land measuring 21 Kanals and 15 Marlas. That after obtaining the decree, negotiation took place by respondent Karan Singh with applicant and a deed of executory sale took place on 8.6.2007, which was duly registered before Sub Registrar, Jammu after having admitted the receipt of whole consideration except Rs. 25.00 lacs. This amount was later on enhanced to Rs. 40.00 lacs due to escalation of price of land. The possession of land was also handed over to applicant. Rs. 1.00 lac was further received by respondent, out of Rs. 40.00 lacs and remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Respondent Karan singh and family members also executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of applicant on 8.6.2007. 6. That respondent filed a suit against the Petitioner in the Court of 3rd Civil Subordinate Judge, Jammu on 22.11.2007, thereby admitting the execution of sale agreement and handing over of possession of land to applicant. That respondent Karan Singh has created the possessory title of the applicant and have received huge amount and now has no right to enter into any agreement or compromise with the Petitioner Munshi Ram. That now Munshi Ram and Kartar Singh have entered into a compromise thereby defeating the possessory title of applicant. That Kartar Singh and Munshi Ram have entered into a compromise in collision with each other, thereby defeating the right of applicant. 7. Objection to application for impleadment of party has also been filed. It has been stated that applicant Harsh Gupta has no locus standi to file present application for becoming party, because a similar application filed by applicant herein, before Appellate Court has been dismissed. That present litigation is between the landlord and tenant under A. R. Act, 1976, so a stranger cannot become a party to this litigation. 8. Heard. Counsel for the applicant has elaborated all the grounds taken in the application for becoming party. Whereas, Counsel for the Munshi Ram argued that applicant Harsh Gupta cannot be made party because he is neither a tenant nor landlord. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter. 8. Heard. Counsel for the applicant has elaborated all the grounds taken in the application for becoming party. Whereas, Counsel for the Munshi Ram argued that applicant Harsh Gupta cannot be made party because he is neither a tenant nor landlord. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter. Present revision has been filed by Munshi Ram against the order of Jt. Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu dated 23.2.2008 by virtue of which appeal filed by Karan Singh u/s 21 (1) of A. R. Act, 1976 and rule 48 of Agrarian Reform Rules, 1977 has been allowed and order of mutation with regard to land measuring 21 Kanals and 11 Marlas under Khasra No. 691 of village Channi Himmat, Jammu has been set aside, and further case has been remanded back to Tehsildar for passing fresh order after conducting denovo enquiry. 10. A.R. Act 1976 has been formulated for transfer of land to tiller, whose entry exists in girdawari of Kharif 1971 with regard to land defined in the Act. This matter is only in between landlord and tenant. It is admitted fact that, applicant is neither a landlord nor tiller. 11. Necessary party is that party without which Court cannot legally adjudicate the matter or pass appropriate order. Further, a similar type of application moved by the applicant, before the Appellate Court on same grounds, which have been mentioned in the present application, has been dismissed. That order has not been challenged, so now present application cannot be entertained on same grounds. Applicant has based his case for becoming part in this revision petition on the basis of agreement to sell executed between him and respondent with regard to land in dispute. An agreement to sell is mere a promise to effect sale deed in future. As per law, legal title on immovable property can only be conferred, when sale deed is executed and registered. Agreement to sell DT. 8.6.2007 executed between applicant and respondent with regard to land in depute is concerned, that agreement can be enforced by applicant by filling suit for specific performance of contract, under specific relief act. 12. Further Revisional court is a supervisory and correcting court. Agreement to sell DT. 8.6.2007 executed between applicant and respondent with regard to land in depute is concerned, that agreement can be enforced by applicant by filling suit for specific performance of contract, under specific relief act. 12. Further Revisional court is a supervisory and correcting court. While exercising this power court has only to see correctness or illegality or propriety of any order passed by court below, so a person, who was not a party to litigation before court below, cannot become a party in revision. 13. Hence application of applicant is dismissed. Let file come up for further proceeding on 30.12.2011.