Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 93 (JK)

Mushtaq Ahmad v. Dharam Singh

2012-03-06

Sanjay Gupta

body2012
1. No one is appearing on behalf of petitioners since 13.5.2011. Counsels for the respondents are present. 2. This revision petition has been filed against the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner Udhampur, with power of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner dated 26.5.2006, by virtue of which he has dismissed two appeals filed by petitioners with regard to land bearing khasra No.503 9 knalas situated at Cholona Tehsil Udhampur. 3. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, Court below has passed order in very hasty manner. That petitioners were in cultivating possession of land prior to 1971 till today. That mutation U/S 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act has been attested in general way and accordingly mutation U/S 8 of Act has also been attested against the provisions of law. That Court below has ignored the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court. 4. I have heard counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the record. 5. From the perusal of record. It appears that petitioners here-in filed two appeals on 13.9.05, one against order dated 16.7.1994 passed by mutating officer, by virtue of which land under khasra No.503 measuring 9 kanals has been attested under section 4 of the Act in favour of respondent no.1 and other appeal against the order dt 28.11.1994 passed by Mutating Officer, by virtue of which land has been mutated u/s 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act in favour of respondent no.1. 6. Along with the appeals, applications for condonation of delay in filing of appeals were also filed. In these applications, it has been stated that both the mutations have been attested in their absence and they came to know on 8.9.2005 about mutations, so delay be condoned. Court below after hearing the parties dismissed both the appeals. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter. 7. This tribunal constituted under special tribunal act, derives power of revision under section 21 of agrarian reform act 1976. It reads as under:- (4) 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. It reads as under:- (4) 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. (5) 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. Bare perusal of this section, it is clear that Revisional jurisdiction of Special Tribunal is exercisable only to examine a matter involving question of law or of public importance. Order arrived after appreciating facts emerging during the course of proceeding before court below, cannot be re-appreciated, unless order is perverse in nature. Question of law means application or interpretation of legal principle or statues. It involves the interpretation of principle that is 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. From perusal of record and other revenue documents reveals that, it is only respondent no. 1 dharma Singh, who was tiller and cultivating the land under dispute at crucial time in kharif 1971 till attestation of mutation. It is a fact which has been gathered after conducting of inquiry on spot by mutating officer. This entry has duly been authenticated by responsible officer. This entry is sine qua for attesting mutations under section under section 4 and 8 of Agrarian reform act 1976. Both mutations reveal that at the time of attestation of mutations many witnesses were present. In both the appeals general averment has been made that predecessor of appellants was tenants in possession of land in 1971 and thereafter. There is not even a single documents from which, it can be inferred that predecessor of appellants or appellants were ever in possession of land. In both the appeals general averment has been made that predecessor of appellants was tenants in possession of land in 1971 and thereafter. There is not even a single documents from which, it can be inferred that predecessor of appellants or appellants were ever in possession of land. Further the mutations under section 4 has been attested on 16.7.1994 and mutation under section 8 has been attested on 28.11.1994, appeals against the order of mutations were filed before court below on 13.9.2005 i.e, after a gap of more than 11 years. 10. As per section 22 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, the limitation for filing the appeals is 60 days. The sub clause 2 of this section further provides that, provision of limitation act shall be applicable. Section 5 of the limitation Act is enabling provision for condoning delay in filling appeal. As per provision of section 5 of limitation act a party seeking relief for condoning delay in filling appeal, has to show sufficient cause. In present case sufficient cause as per application u/s 5 of the limitation Act has been shown that, mutations were attested in exparte and it was only on 8.9.05 petitioner got knowledge. This is a general types of averment made by appellants in application without any basis. Though Law is very liberal in condoning delay, but for this purpose believable cause has to be shown, which in present case is missing. 11. In this way petitioners have failed to point out any question of law or of public importance in the memo of revision petition. Petitioner has challenged the order on factual matrix of case which cannot be appreciated in revision. 12. Cumulative effect of whole discussion is that, this revision petition is devoid of any merits. Hence it is dismissed. Order of court below is upheld. File of court below is sent back along with this order.