Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 241 (JK)

Atta Mohd. Katoch v. J&K Special Tribunal

2015-05-12

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2002 passed in writ petition being OWP No. 612/2002 whereby the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed. 2. With a view to understand the controversy in its correct perspective, it is, however, necessary to give in brief a few material facts: 3. Vide mutation No. 936, dated 28.7.1981, the Tehsildar, Banihal ordered correction of Girdawari (Sehat kashat) in favour of one Habib Ullah, father of the petitioner/appellant herein, in respect of land measuring 1 maria under Khasra No. 66 and 1 maria under Khasra No. 1088/67 min situated at Ramsoo Tehsil Banihal 4. As a necessary consequence: of the mutation No. 936 (supra), another mutation No. 1077 was attested in respect of the same land under Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (for short, Act of 1976) and finally vide mutation No. 1078, father of the appellant (Habib Ullah) was declared as absolute owner of the land under Section 8 of the Act of 1976. 5. Aggrieved of the mutation No. 936, an appeal was preferred before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu after a lapse of four years and ten months of the date of the aforesaid mutation. This was subsequently transferred to the Deputy Commissioner, Doda, who was vested with the powers of the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms. Subsequently, it appears that the said powers of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner were delegated to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramban, who vide its order dated 29.07.1997 allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation No. 936. The reasons for allowing the appeal were firstly that the mutation had been attested without affording any opportunity of being heard to the respondents herein and secondly, that the mutation was contrary to the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act inasmuch as the land in question was Gair Mumkin i.e. uncultivable land, therefore, outside the purview of the Act. 6. Aggrieved of the order dated 29.07.1997, revision came to be preferred before the J&K Special Tribunal inter alia on the ground that Habib Ullah predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had died and that the appeal was decided without bringing on record the appellant herein, as his legal heir on record and without affording any opportunity of being heard to such legal heirs. It was stated that Habib Ullah had died on 18.02.1997 oven before the order was passed without any stops having been initiated to bring on record his legal heirs. 7. The Tribunal, held that the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramban was one against a dead person and, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law and also being satisfied that there being no condonation of delay application filed by the appellant despite there being a delay of four years and ten months, held the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 29.07.1997 as bad in law. However, at the same time, it remanded the case to the Tehsildar Banihal for conducting a denovo inquiry regarding the nature of land as also possession thereon during the period of Kharif 1971 after providing an opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned on the ground that the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act did not apply to the land in respect of which mutation under Section 4 had been attested and further that it had not been attested in accordance with the provisions, governing attestation of such mutations. 8. The Tribunal by virtue of the same order dealt with and decided another revision petition filed in the Tribunal against the order of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner dated 3rd May, 1998 passed in appeal titled "Ghulam Nabi and Ors v. Atta Mohammad and Ors" in which appeal, mutation Nos. 1077 and 1078 had been challenged under Sections 6 and 8 of the Act of 1976 and pertained to the same land in regard to which mutation No. 936 had also been attested. 9. The basis of challenge in the aforementioned revision petition filed by Atta Mohammad, the appellant herein, was on the question of jurisdiction to the extent that the Additional Deputy Commissioner with powers of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Ramban did not possess the jurisdiction to hear appeals. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner did not exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with Order 7, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure as the Appellate Authority did not have the jurisdiction to pass the order impugned and consequently set aside the said order. However, even then the Tribunal set aside the aforementioned order in regard to mutation Nos. However, even then the Tribunal set aside the aforementioned order in regard to mutation Nos. 1077 and 1078, being satisfied that the said mutations were natural corollaries of mutation No. 936 and pertained to the same land. The Tribunal while remanding the case to the Tehsildar, Banihal issued a direction to examine afresh the said two mutations after providing an opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned. 10. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant filed a petition before a Single Bench of this Court, urging therein that once the Tribunal had set aside the order of the appellate authority on the ground that the same had been passed against a dead person then the matter should have been left to the decision of the appellate authority and mutation No. 936 should not have been quashed. Additionally that once the Tribunal in regard to mutation Nos. 1077 and 1078 had held that appellate authority i.e. Joint Agrarian Reforms commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal then it ought not to have set aside the said mutations and the correct procedure to adopt was to follow Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. It is true that an appeal preferred against a mutation No. 936 was filed belatedly without there being any application for condonation of delay. It was also admitted that the order of the appellate authority dated 29.7.1997 was passed against a dead person, yet the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Tehsildar. While the Tribunal could have remanded the case back to the appellate authority to decide those issues afresh but nothing prevented the tribunal in law being a revisional authority to remand the matter to the Tehsildar for consideration of the issue afresh after conducting a denovo enquiry regarding the nature of the land and the possession thereupon during the period of Kharif 1971. 13. The powers of revision earlier available to the Revenue Minister in terms of Section 21 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 are now exercised by the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal Act, 1988. According to Section 21 of the Act 1976, the Revisional authority has the power to exercise revisional jurisdiction if it finds that a question of law or public interest is involved in the case. According to Section 21 of the Act 1976, the Revisional authority has the power to exercise revisional jurisdiction if it finds that a question of law or public interest is involved in the case. 14. Applying the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act to a piece of land, which does not at all attract the provisions of the Act or attesting a mutation contrary to the provisions prescribed for attestation of such mutations does involve a question of law and to that extent, there was nothing wrong in the revisional authority exercising its revisional jurisdiction and remanding the matter back to the Tehsildar to conduct a denovo enquiry. 15. Since mutation Nos. 1077 and 1078 were a necessary consequence and a fall out of the mutation No. 936, it appeals to logic that the said mutations too are set aside with fresh orders to be passed upon a denovo enquiry. 16. We cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one taken by the writ court. Consequently, the present Letters Patent Appeal is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected application. It is, however, made clear that the Tehsildar on remand of the case shall pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by the observations made by the Tribunal in regard to the mutations in question.