Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 409 (JK)

Suram Chand v. Prem Chand

2012-07-10

Sanjay Gupta

body2012
1. No one is appearing since long. So, I am deciding this revision on merit. 2. This revision petition has been directed against the order of Addl. Deputy Commissioner Ramban, with power of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms dt. 14.11.2007, by virtue of which appeal of respondent has been accepted and mutation no.30 of village chanderkote attested by Tehsildar Ramban with regard to land measuring 05 kanls 10 marlas under Khasra No.184/124 min (new Khasra No. 105 as per new settlement), has been set aside and Tehsildar has been directed to conduct de novo enquiry. 3. Petitioner has challenged the order on the grounds that, order is against facts and law. That Govt. Order No. REV(LD) 133/89 dt. 6.5.89 has no application to the case. That mutating Officer has sufficiently described the property and land in dispute. That principle of res judicata is not applicable in the case. 4. I have gone through the memo of revision petition and records. Brief facts of the case are that Niab Tehsildar Batote attested mutation No. 195 dt. 7.2.82 and mutation 265 dt. 15.12.85 U/s 4 and 8 of Agr.Ref. Act respectively, with regard to land measuring 5 kanals 10 marlas in favour of respondent herein. The settlement operation concluded in village in 1987-88. Respondent herein was shown owner of land. Petitioner herein challenged the mutations in appeals before Agrarian Reforms commissioner Ramban, who accepted the appeal and set aside the mutations on 17.9.2002 and remanded the case to Settlement Tehsildar for de novo enquiry with regard to mutations. Accordingly Tehsildar conducted fresh enquiry and attested the mutation no.30, on 21.10.2003 in favour of petitioner herein. 5. Aggrieved by this order, respondent herein preferred appeal before court below and Court below after hearing the parties set aside the orders of Tehsildar and held that mutation orders was not correct as Tehsildar Settlement did not conduct complete enquiry. Court below accepted the appeal on 14.11.2007 and matter again has been remanded to Tehsildar for de novo inquiry.Aggrieved by this order present revision petition has been filed. I have carefully gone through the whole aspect of the matter. Bare perusal of impugned order it is evident that Court below has not finally determined any legal right of parties. Court below accepted the appeal on 14.11.2007 and matter again has been remanded to Tehsildar for de novo inquiry.Aggrieved by this order present revision petition has been filed. I have carefully gone through the whole aspect of the matter. Bare perusal of impugned order it is evident that Court below has not finally determined any legal right of parties. Court below has only remanded the case to Tehsildar for conducting de novo enquiry on the ground that appellant was protected tenant since 1955 and he cannot be dispossessed from land without adopting due course of law. Further no proper demarcation of land has been conducted. 6. This court derives power of revision under section 21(2) of Agrarian Reform Act. 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. 7. This court is exercising power of revision in term of section 3 of special Tribunal Act 1986,, which were previously exercised by Revenue minister This section mandate that revision is maintainable before this court only against final order of commissioner and that too, if question of law or public interest is involved. So in this way, a final order and existence of question of law or public interest are sine qua for exercising revisional jurisdiction U/S 21 (2) of Agrarian Reforms Act. Revisional authority has to record its findings with respect to these conditions. 8. Final order is that order, which finally determines any legal right of parties. 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. Revisional authority has to record its findings with respect to these conditions. 8. Final order is that order, which finally determines any legal right of parties. 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. Order based on finding of facts, cannot be set aside in revisional jurisdiction, unless it is found that, it is perverse in nature. 9. In present case Court below has only remanded the case to Tehsildar settlement for de novo inquiry and no final right of any parties to litigation has been decided. Matter is still alive and any part, if aggrieved by the order of Tehsildar has remedy to approach higher forum. Impugned order is neither final order nor there appears any existence of question of law or public interest in impugned order 10. Hence revision petition is dismissed. Record of court below is sent back along with this order. File be consigned to records after due completion. File of this court shall be consigned to records after due compilation.