Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 67 (JK)

Ropu v. Som Nath

2015-03-03

SONALI KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sonali Kumar, IAS (Chairperson) 1. This revision is directed against an order dated 14.05.1993 whereby an appeal filed by petitioner against Mutation No. 160, has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that then Circle Officer corrected girdawari entries in favour of petitioner and Santokhu and Ashwani which was challenged by Beli Ram before then Deputy Commissioner Udhampur which were transferred to Commissioner Agrarian Reforms after coming into force of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. The Commissioner Agrarian Reforms after adjudication upon the appeal accepted the same quashed the entries made by Circle Officer and directed Tehsildar Udhampur to hold the factual enquiry into the entry made by the Circle Officer in terms of Rule 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Rules, 1977. The Tehsildar held the enquiry as per the orders of Commissioner and ultimately held that Som Nath was in cultivating possession of the suit land being an owner and not Ropu and others and held them not entitled for benefits of Agrarian Reforms Act. This order of the Commissioner was challenged by petitioner before the Commissioner who dismissed the same vide impugned order. Aggrieved of the impugned order the petitioner has filed a revision earlier in 1996 which was disposed of by the then Ld. Member of this Tribunal on 25.02.1999 whereby the revision filed by Ropu has been dismissed. This order of Tribunal dated 25.02.1999 was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court through Writ Petition No. 237/99 and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.11.2001 remanded the matter to the Tribunal with the direction to go into the question of facts also in determining as to who was in actual possession in the year 1971. The reference has been made by the Hon'ble High Court to an authority reported as 2000 KLJ 542 in case titled Satya Devi v. State of J&K and Ors. This order of the Hon'ble High Court is being implemented by deciding this revision. 3. During the pendency of the case before this Tribunal petitioner Ropu died and he was substituted by his legal heirs namely Sukhdevi widow of Ropu, Bishano Devi Daughter and Thakur Dass son. 4. This order of the Hon'ble High Court is being implemented by deciding this revision. 3. During the pendency of the case before this Tribunal petitioner Ropu died and he was substituted by his legal heirs namely Sukhdevi widow of Ropu, Bishano Devi Daughter and Thakur Dass son. 4. The petitioner in the revision petition as well as in his arguments pleaded that he was in the cultivating possession of the suit land before 1976 and was paying the rent to Ropu regularly so he acquired the status of a tenant and was entitled for benefits under Agrarian Reforms Act. The possession of the petitioner stands reflected in the revenue records of 1971 which is the determining factor for conferring benefits under the Act. The Tehsildar Udhampur ignored the fact that the petitioner had the receipts of rent issued by Beli Ram, ex-landlord and the witnesses produced by the petitioner. The Tehsildar failed to appreciate the evidences adduced by the petitioner and the Tehsildar made stress on number of witnesses and not on the quality of the statements. That the observations of Tehsildar as well as Commissioner that the rate of rent pertains to some other land and not to the suit land is not connected. Beli Ram respondent herein had died without any issue and the claim of respondents that he was adopted by Beli Ram is not correct. The evidence recorded by the mutating officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is governed by the evidence Act which prescribes the mode of recording evidence of witnesses. That mode has not been properly adopted by the Mutating Officer. This question requires determination by the Tribunal being the question of public importance because the Revenue Officer filed the procedure while recording evidence of the witnesses. The whole of the proceedings recorded by the Mutating Officer are against the law cannot be made basis for dismissing the appeal. A prayer has been made to accept the revision and set aside impugned orders. 5. The respondent in his revision pleaded that there are concurrent finding of facts recorded by the court below so the present revision is not maintainable. The concurrent finding facts recorded by the court below cannot be disturbed while exercising revisional powers by this Tribunal u/s 21(2) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. 5. The respondent in his revision pleaded that there are concurrent finding of facts recorded by the court below so the present revision is not maintainable. The concurrent finding facts recorded by the court below cannot be disturbed while exercising revisional powers by this Tribunal u/s 21(2) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. The entry made by the Circle Officer on 30.11.1974 under Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972 for the suit land was challenged by Beli Ram adoptive father of respondent. The Commissioner vide order dated 14.12.1981 set aside the entry and remanded the case back to Tehsildar Udhampur for fresh enquiry. The Tehsildar after holding proper enquiry and also after providing sufficient opportunities of being heard to both parties vide order dated 6.5.1982 rejected the claim of petitioner and restored entry of self cultivation of said Beli Ram w.e.f. 1971 that too in the presence of Santokhu and Ashwani who did not challenge the order of Tehsildar dated 6.5.1982 and it was only the petitioner who preferred the appeal. The revision is time barred as it has been filed after the lapse of about 3 years of passing of impugned order by the Commissioner without an application for condoning of delay. There is no question of law or public interest involved and the petitioner has mainly pleaded question of facts that too has been based on frivolous and flimsy grounds. The claim of the petitioner that respondent is not connected with the family of Beli Ram is false and frivolous because the respondent is the only legal heir of deceased Beli Ram through a proper adoption deed duly executed on 2.2.1965. The mutation of inheritance of Beli Ram stands also attested in favour on respondents and the respondent on the basis of that is in cultivating possession of suit land after death of said Beli Ram. A prayer has been made to dismiss the revision. 6. I have given my due consideration to the arguments of counsel for the parties and have examined the records available on the file. 7. The Revenue Record available on the file as well as the detailed enquiry held by the Tehsildar Udhampur shows that Beli Ram was in cultivating possession of the suit land before and after Kharief 1971 and Circle Officer without any valid reason corrected the entry in favour of Ropu and others which was subsequently rightly set aside by the Commissioner. The Revenue Record available on the file as well as the detailed enquiry held by the Tehsildar Udhampur shows that Beli Ram was in cultivating possession of the suit land before and after Kharief 1971 and Circle Officer without any valid reason corrected the entry in favour of Ropu and others which was subsequently rightly set aside by the Commissioner. The records available on the file as well as the enquiry held by the Tehsildar Udhampur also shows that the rent receipts produced by Ropu pertains to some other land than the suit land. The suit land is therefore not hit by the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act. This has also been proven that the respondent herein has been properly adopted by Beli Ram through the legal adoption deed and subsequently mutation stands attested in favour of respondent. In my opinion the Tehsildar as well as the Commissioner has rightly rejected the claim of Petitioner as he is not entitled for benefits of Section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. 8. Accordingly, on the findings above, I find no merit in the revision. The same is hence dismissed. The stay order/status order, if any, issued in this case by this Tribunal shall stands vacated. The records of the court below be returned along with copy of this order. 9. File be consigned to records after due completion.