Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 669 (JK)

Ajab Singh v. Daljeet Singh (Dead)

2011-12-01

Sanjay Gupta

body2011
1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 15-3-2002, passed by Director Land Record with powers of Settlement Officer Agrarian Reforms, by virtue of which, he has dismissed appeal of petitioners against decision of ACR Collector Agrarian Reforms Jammu dt. 5-7-1993. 2. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that order has been passed without application of mind and without any justification. That order is sketchy one and does not describe the judicial mind of Court below. 3. I have heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 4. The relevant facts with regard to matter are that, Respondent Daljeet Singh filed a suit before Munsiff Akhnoor for possession of land total measuring 57 Kanals under various Khasra No's situated at village Tragwal, Tehsil Akhnoor on the ground that, he is co-share of the land to the extent of one third of total land of plaintiffs and defendants. That he was serving in Army and in his absence defendants had been in use of land, as co-sharer. Ajab Singh filed written statement and stated that plaintiff Daljeet Singh has been entered as co-sharer owner in record for one sixth share of land owned by the parties and not one third share. Daljeet Singh, being absentee landlord, is not entitled to any possession of land. One of defendant namely Attar Singh admitted claim of plantiff, Whereas other two defendants did not contest the claim of Dalgeet Singh. 5. This suit was transferred to ACR, Jammu by Munsif Akhnoor and it was held by ACR Jammu that, land is a joint properties of parties to suit, Further after perusing the Jamabandi of 1958-59;the court came to conclusion that Plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share, because as at foot note of jama bandi, it has been written that predecessor through whom dalgeet singh is claiming inheritance was holding 1/3rd share in land. It was further held by court that, under the provision of law, a co-sharer in possession of land cannot be considered as a tenant under an absentee co-sharer. As per ACR, occupation of land of defendants to the extent of share of plaintiff is very much unauthorized and accordingly suit was decreed in favour of Daljeet Singh to the extent of one third share only. 6. As per ACR, occupation of land of defendants to the extent of share of plaintiff is very much unauthorized and accordingly suit was decreed in favour of Daljeet Singh to the extent of one third share only. 6. This order was passed on 5.7.1993 and against this order, two appeals were filed before Director Land Records with the power of Settlement Officer, Jammu, one by petitioners herein and second by Attar sing, sardar singh and manjit sing against Dalgit singh, who on 15.3.2002 agreed with the decree of Court below and held that co-sharer cannot be treated as tennats and thereby dismissed the appeals. Against this order only, Petitioner has filled present revision. 7. Section 21 of A. R. Act, 1976 deals with appeals and revisions. It reads as under:- (1) Any person aggrieved by a final order of a Collector or a Revenue Officer of a class lower than that of a Collector may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner having jurisdiction in the area to which the appeal relates. (2) The Revenue Minister may at any time call for the record of any case in which a Tehsildar or an Assistant Commissioner has passed orders in respect of evacuees land or State land or of any case in which Commissioner has passed final order and if he finds that a question of law or public interest is involved in the case, he may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit; Provided that no order shall be passed against any party without affording that party an opportunity of being heard. 8. Question of law means application or interpretation of legal principle or statues. It involves the interpretation of principle that are potentially applicable to other case. It relates to determination of what is law, how it is applied to facts of case. It is purely legal in contention. 9. The only contention of counsel for petitioner is that order is not detail. I have gone through order impugned. 10. In the present case a finding of facts has been recorded by first that, parties are co sharers of land in disputes and respondent no.1 was entitled to 1/3rd share in land. This finding cannot be disturbed, because it is not perverse in nature. 11. The share of respondent no. 1 was in cultivating possession of other co sharers, because he was in army. This finding cannot be disturbed, because it is not perverse in nature. 11. The share of respondent no. 1 was in cultivating possession of other co sharers, because he was in army. The co sharers were trustee of land of land of respondentno.1.So they cannot, derive the benefit of tenancy. Under section 2(12) of the A.R. Act, land in personal cultivation possession of one co-sharer shall be treated as cultivation possession of other co-sharer. 12. When court after appreciating the evidence or court of appeal after perusing the order impugned, comes to conclusion that, case require applicability of statue or settled law, then court is not require to write order in detail. Judgment means, that a person in favour or against whom, it is given should know as to why he win or loses the case. 13. In view of what has been discussed and law on the point, the order impugned does not suffer from any legal defect. This revision accordingly is dismissed. Record of court below is sent back along with order.