Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 277 (JK)

Gh. Mohd. Bhat v. Haseena

2017-06-07

KOSSAR AHMAD QURESHI

body2017
JUDGMENT : KOSSAR AHMAD QURESHI, J. (MEMBER) 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by Addl. Commissioner (vested powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Pulwama on 04.06.2016 whereby he has held the petitioners herein as trespasser on land measuring 07 kanals and 09 marlas under survey No. 1419 (old survey Nos. 244 min and 245 min) situated in village Larkipora Tehsil Awantipora. The brief facts of the case are that Razak and Ramzan were brothers and khewatdar at Estate Larkipora. Razak had two sons Aziz and Jabbar. Ramzan died issueless. The landed properties of both Razak and Ramzan vested in Aziz and Jabar through inheritance. The land estate of Aziz was inherited by his daughter Haseena (respondent No. 2) by virtue of mutation order No. 1444 and that of Jabar, Javaid and others by virtue of mutation No. 1443. However, the Tehsildar Pulwama has passed a mutation order No. 721, the landed estate of Aziz S/O Razak vested in estate under section 8 of the said Act, 1976. Thereafter, in terms of the section 8 of the said Act, the landed estate vested in Mohammad Son of Samad Bhat by virtue of mutation No. 725 dated 18.08.2006 under section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. Aggrieved of the mutation order, the present respondents preferred an appeal before the Additional Dy. Commissioner Pulwama with the powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, who dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the present respondents challenged the said order before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 15.09.2011 accepted the revision petition of the respondents and set aside the mutation No' 594, 725 and 726 at village Larkipora and the case was remanded to Tehsildar Awantipora for de novo enquiry. Thereafter filed the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K, seeking quashment of order dated 15.09.2011 passed by this Tribunal and the Single Bench of the Hon'ble High court allowed both the writ petitions of the present petitioner vide its judgment and order dated 15.07.2014. The respondents herein filed two LPAs before DB of the Hon'ble High Court. The operative portion of the order dated 09.06.2015 is reproduced herein below:- "for the stated facts, reasons, circumstances and the position of law, order impugned dated 15.07.2014 passed by learned Single is unsustainable, as such, set-aside. The respondents herein filed two LPAs before DB of the Hon'ble High Court. The operative portion of the order dated 09.06.2015 is reproduced herein below:- "for the stated facts, reasons, circumstances and the position of law, order impugned dated 15.07.2014 passed by learned Single is unsustainable, as such, set-aside. Order of the J&K Special Tribunal dated 15.09.2011 is modified to the extent that instead of Tehsildar Assistant Commissioner (Collector) Pulwama shall hold denovo enquiry and after hearing both the parties, shall pass appropriate order under law". 2. The Learned Assistant Commissioner (Collector) Pulwama vide its order dated 18.12.2015 after hearing the parties making spot inspection and recorded the statement of parties and after perusal of the revenue records of Kharif 1971 has passed the detailed order wherein Tehsildar Awantipora was directed to handover the possession of the suit land to the respondents herein and keep the mutation Nos. 526, 1443, and 1444 intact. 3. The petitioners herein aggrieved by the said order, has filed the appeal before the Ld. Addl. Commissioner (vested powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Pulwama and Learned Addl. Commissioner Pulwama after hearing counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record finally decided the appeal of the present petitioner and dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 04.06.2016 which is impugned. 4. The learned Assistant Commissioner (Collector) Pulwama after following the directions passed by the Hon'ble High court has conducted the detailed enquiry and after recording the statement of witnesses even has passed the detailed order against which the present petitioners have filed the appeal before the Ld. Addl. Commissioner (vested powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Pulwama who also dismissed the appeals and against the dismissal order passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner (vested powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Pulwama filed this revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the record available on file. 6. Both the lower courts i.e., learned Assistant Commissioner (Collector) Pulwama and learned Addl. Commissioner (vested powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Pulwama have held that the petitioner herein has not been a tenant/tiller of the said land so the finding is a concurrent finding of fact under law cannot be disturbed in revision petition. There is no illegality in the order. Both the lower courts i.e., learned Assistant Commissioner (Collector) Pulwama and learned Addl. Commissioner (vested powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Pulwama have held that the petitioner herein has not been a tenant/tiller of the said land so the finding is a concurrent finding of fact under law cannot be disturbed in revision petition. There is no illegality in the order. The petitioner himself before learned Assistant Commissioner (Collector) Pulwama openly admitted that petitioner has purchased the land in question, so under no circumstances the petitioner can be the tenant of the land in question. The petitioner had also filed a Civil Suit before the Learned Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Pulwama where he assailed and admitted that the petitioner has purchased the land in question is clear cut proof that he was never tenant nor there was relationship of tenant landlord. The admission of the petitioner in suit filed by the petitioner in the civil court of Learned Sub Judge (CJM) Pulwama, that the petitioner has purchased the land in question, is no more than sufficient for setting aside the mutation of Sehtikash, mutation under section 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. For what has been stated hereinabove, the revision petitioner is held to be without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. Interim directions granted shall stand vacated. Petition is disposed of and shall be consigned to records after its due completion. The record file, if called, be sent back forthwith to the court below.