Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 432 (JK)

Prem Nath v. Krishan Lal

2016-08-17

RAMESH KUMAR WATTAL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Kumar Wattal, Member (Judicial) These two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner on the grounds that land measuring 12 kanals 10 marlas situated at Sira Kotla Udhampur was mutated in favour of Sansar Chand, Gian Chand sons of Badri Nath together with Prem Nath who were declared as prospective owners under section-4 as per mutat ion no; 437 in 29.3.1982. 2. That they were also declared as absolute owners as per mutation no. 560. 3. That the respondents Krishan Lal remained silent till 2006 and then they filed appeal against the above mentioned mutation orders claiming possession of 2 kanals and 1 kanal of land respectively in one Khasra No. 55. 4. On the basis of wrong statements mutation no; 714 and 715 were attested by Tehsildar Settlement whereby the land was ordered to vest in State. 5. The respondents also challenged these orders before Addl. Dy. Commissioner who vide order impugned remanded the appeals to Tehsildar on erroneous grounds without giving opportunity to the petitioners, without summoning them, without perusing the records and going into the fact regarding correctness of mutation nos. 437 and 560 and without ascertaining the facts. 6. It is also urged that Court below should have gone to this aspect that the mutations were correctly attested; and if the petitioners were not in possession of 24 kanals and 1 kanal, they should have been restored possession u/s 27 Agr. Reforms Act. 7. A prayer is made for setting aside order. 8. I have gone through the revision petition, the record in the file in which the order dismissal of revision petition purported to have been passed on 8.5.2012 has been challenged. 9. It be submitted that order dated 8.5.2012 purported to have been passed dismissing revision petition hi default of application of the parties is not signed by the presiding Officer. These files had been consigned to records. The petitioner has submitted that party has wrongly been stated to be dead mistakenly when the fact is otherwise, as such the appropriate order be passed. 10. Since the judgment becomes operative only after the same is duly signed by the presiding Officer. 11. These files had been consigned to records. The petitioner has submitted that party has wrongly been stated to be dead mistakenly when the fact is otherwise, as such the appropriate order be passed. 10. Since the judgment becomes operative only after the same is duly signed by the presiding Officer. 11. A judgment though pronounced and not signed does not fulfil the legal requirements of a valid judgment under law and the order purported to have been passed on 8-5-2012 though stated to have been drafted by the presiding officer, but the same having not been duly signed by the then presiding officer does not hence final and operative regarding the decision given thereon. 12. Otherwise the order purportedly an order of dismissal of default being opposite to law does not become operative for the conclusion of the revision petition which cannot be dismissed in default for non appearance of parties and presiding officer has to decide the revision as per merits and law even if the parties do not appear. 13. I have heard the final arguments in the case also. 14. As per records the mutation under section 4 and 8 has been attested with respect to 12 kanals 10, marlas of land in favour of the petitioners on 29-3-1982 and 8-7-92 who are the absolute owners of the land. 15. This mutations under section 4 has been attested in the camp with regard to the whole village in presence of village biradri and no interruption in cultivation or possession of land has been reported or stated by any of the participants before the attesting officer nor any illegality or irregularity is shown in these mutations. These mutations are shown to have been attested correctly in conformity with the provision of Agrarian Reform Act and the rules made there under and as such order of court below in accepting the appeals filed by the respondents and remanding these mutations for denovo enquiry is erroneous, improper and requires to be set aside. 16. Revision against the order of setting aside of mutations is therefore accepted and the order under revision is set aside. 17. As regards mutation no. 16. Revision against the order of setting aside of mutations is therefore accepted and the order under revision is set aside. 17. As regards mutation no. 714 and 715, it is shown that the petitioners have wrongly transferred the possession of 2 kanals and 1 kanal respectively in favour of the respondents in violation of the provision of Agrarian Reforms Act as no transfer of agrarian land under section 4 and 8 can be affected in violation of the provision of section 28-A. 18. The respondents have not been able to produce any record nor there is any iota of evidence on the file that they have been in possession of the land measuring 2 kanals or 1 kanal. They have not chosen to be present before the attesting officer. The petitioners have also not shown as to how the possession came in the hands of respondent. 19. Thus the order passed on mutation no 714 and 715 is not shown to be with any defect the same is upheld. 20. Orders of the court below impugned dated 10-8-2006 is set aside. 21. Order of mutations nos.437-560 attested under section 4 and 8 and 714 and 715 attested under section 28-A of Agrarian Reform Act are upheld. 22. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. 23. Revision files be consigned to record after due completion.