Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 134 (JK)

Sohan Lal v. Prem Nath

2012-03-29

Sanjay Gupta

body2012
1. Petitioner has challenged order of Financial Commissioner, with power of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms dated 29-08-05, by virtue of which the two appeals filled by the petitioner herein, have been dismissed. 2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned on the grounds that, the court below has not properly appreciated the direction passed by this court on 5-09-2000. That without applying the mind, in hot and haste manner the matter has been decided, thus order impugned is bad in law. The mutation orders of Tehsildar were not in accordance with standing order 23-A. That orders of mutations were against the principle of natural justice. 3. Heard both the counsels at length and perused the record of Court below. 4. It appears that two mutations, one mutation no. 504 U/S 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act and other mutation no. 518 dt. 11.1.1982 U/s 8 of Agrarian Reform Act were attested by Tehsildar in favour father of respondent no.1 with regard to land measuring 9 Kanal under Kh. No. 687/536, 17 M under Kh. No. 537,1 K-14 M under kh. No. 514 and 2 K 1 Marala under Kh. No. 546 situated Hakal Tehsil and District Jammu. 5. Two appeals were filed by the petitioner on 18-6-1992 and both were dismissed in default on 24-11-1994. Thereafter application for restoration was also dismissed in default on merit. Thereafter matter was taken before this court and case was remanded back to court below for passing fresh order after readmitting the appeal. This order was passed by this court in a revision filed by petitioner, decided on 5-9-2000. 6. It appears that court below in compliance to order of this court on 29-08-05, decided the matter and thereby dismissed both the appeals on the ground that land was in cultivating possession of Teju Ram during the Kharif 1971 and there is no mention of joint possession in record. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspect of the matter. 8. The case of the petitioner is that, he along with his brother namely Teju Ram and Sadhu Ram (Respondents before the court below,) were in joint possession of land mentioned above, previously their father was in cultivation occupation of land and after his death in 1954, he and his brother came into cultivating possession of land. 8. The case of the petitioner is that, he along with his brother namely Teju Ram and Sadhu Ram (Respondents before the court below,) were in joint possession of land mentioned above, previously their father was in cultivation occupation of land and after his death in 1954, he and his brother came into cultivating possession of land. Up to 1964 they remained in cultivating possession jointly and thereafter, he joined Army and remained in army, till 1982 when he retired. At his back, his both brothers got attested mutation U/S 4 & 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act, with regard to land in question. 9. As per petitioners, both the mutation has wrongly been attested, as he was in army and so he is deemed to be in cultivating possession of his share as per agrarian Reforms, 1976 Act. 10. I have given thoughtful consideration to matter in dispute and gone through relevant law pertaining to matter. 11. Agrarian Reform act 1976 has been formulated in order to give land to tiller, who was cultivating the land in kharif 1971. Section 4 of Act envisaged that firstly, all right and title and interest in the land of any person shall be deemed to be extinguished and vested in State. Tiller or tenant, who was cultivating land in kharif 1971, is termed as prospective owner of that land. Further as per section 8 the tiller who cultivating in kharif 1971 land, from whom land is so resumed, shall be vested with ownership right. So, for attesting mutation of ownership under section 8 of act with regard to land defined in act, name of prospective owner mentioned in mutation attested under section 4 of the Act is sinequa. In this way a tiller of such land gets, prospective owner right and ownership right under section 4 and 8 of act respectively, on account of personal cultivation of that land on first day of September 1971 (KHARIF 1971) and not on account of law of inheritance applicable to parties. 12. In the present case present case, it is father of respondent no. 1, who has been shown as tiller of land under dispute in girdawari of kharif 1971. There in no mention of joint cultivation of land. So grounds mentioned in revision that father of respondent no.1, was cultivating land on behalf petitioners also, as he was in army, is not tenable. 1, who has been shown as tiller of land under dispute in girdawari of kharif 1971. There in no mention of joint cultivation of land. So grounds mentioned in revision that father of respondent no.1, was cultivating land on behalf petitioners also, as he was in army, is not tenable. Unless and until girdawari entry of kharif 1971 is not corrected with regard to share of petitioner in land, no mutation can be attested on his name under section 4 and 8 of act. 13. In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the order and accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Record of Court below sent back along with this Order. This file consigned to records after due completion.