Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 399 (JK)

Gh. Nabi Bhat v. State

2012-07-09

Mansoor Ahmad Mir

body2012
1. Petitioners have called in question the orders dated 17th June, 2010 passed in a review petition titled Mohammad Abdullah Dar v. Ghulam Nabi Bhat and others. The petitioners also seek quashment of the proceedings pending before Additional Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, titled Mohd. Abdullah Dar v. Ali Mohammad and others, proceedings drawn by City Munsiff, Srinagar in a suit titled Mohd. Abdullah Dar v. Gh. Ahmad and others and the order dated 20th October, 2011. Petitioners further seek a direction in the name of respondents 4 and 5 to implement the orders which have attained finality. 2. Precisely the case of the petitioners is that respondent No. 6 has projected a claim that he is a tenant of Zeba and sought correction of revenue records in the year 1979 in ownership column for recording him as tenant and accordingly mutation No. 2142 dated 21st June, 1979 was affected in favour of respondent No. 6 and was made foundation for passing mutation No. 2586 dated 19th September, 1984 and mutation No. 2593 dated 22nd September, 1984, in terms of mandate of Agrarian Reforms Act. Petitioners being legal heirs of Zeba questioned the mutations before respondent No. 2, was set-aside. 3. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 6 preferred a revision petition before J&K Special Tribunal. The revision petition was dismissed and order passed by respondent No. 2 was upheld. 4. Petitioners thereafter questioned all the orders by the medium of a writ petition being OWP No. 561/93 which was dismissed by the writ court. The dismissal order resulted in filing of a Letters Patent Appeal, which too was dismissed as withdrawn. 5. During the pendency of Letters Patent Appeal, respondent No. 6 filed a civil suit which had the same subject as was involved the writ petition before this court. 6. Virtually the petitioners, by the medium of civil suit, revision petition and review petition, questioned all those orders which have been upheld by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, J&K Special Tribunal, by the writ court and by the LPA Bench also. 7. This court has already in Civil Revision No. 161/2008 observed that petitioner has raised plea of maintainability, despite that City Munsiff did not decide the preliminary issue as was reflected in the order passed by this court in revision petition. 7. This court has already in Civil Revision No. 161/2008 observed that petitioner has raised plea of maintainability, despite that City Munsiff did not decide the preliminary issue as was reflected in the order passed by this court in revision petition. The direction of this court was that trial court shall proceed in the matter only after framing preliminary issues regarding the maintainability of the suit. 8. In the given circumstances, the petitioners have carved out a case for admission. 9. Admitted. Issue notice. Mr. N.H. Shah, Deputy Advocate General and Arshad Andrabi, Advocate waived notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 and 6 respectively. Notice to respondents 7 to 10 returnable within four weeks. Steps for service within one week. List after service. Proceedings before the court of City Munsiff, Srinagar, Additional Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, are stayed. The order passed by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Kashmir, dated 17th October, 2010 is also stayed. Send for the record of all the three courts. CMP disposed of.