Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 731 (JK)

Ab. Ahad Mir v. Raj Nath Koul

2017-08-24

KOSSAR AHMAD QURESHI

body2017
ORDER : Kossar Ahmad Qureshi, J. (Member) 1. The above titled revision under section 21(2) of Agrarian Reforms Act against the order of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Bandipora dated 02.01.2015 stand filed by the petitioner. The brief facts giving rise to the petition are that the land measuring 8 kanals and 17 marlas comprising under Khasra No. 1484, which has been transferred by Tehsildar Bandipora vide order No. 719 dated 24.09.1989 under section 4 and mutation No. 743 under section 8 involving the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. While doing so, a change in tenancy has been effected from the joint estate of legal heirs of last estate holder, namely, Aftab Koul which include Janki Nath, Lasa Koul, Kanaya Lal & Raj Nath, in favour of Janki Nath and Lasa Koul shareholders by virtue of mutation No. 718. This has been done before sanctioning the mutations under section 4 & 8. 2. The grounds taken by the attesting authority in sanctioning the impugned mutations is that the land in question has been in cultivating possession of the petitioner since 1971 wherein, the attesting officer has inferred that the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 were applicable to the land in question. Aggrieved by the above orders of the mutation, the respondents preferred the appeal against the said mutation orders before Commissioner Agrarian Reforms/ADC, Bandiproa, pleading therein that the land in question along with other lands is their ancestral proprietary, inherited by them after the expiry of the last estate holder Aftab Koul but for the untoward circumstances, the respondents migrated from the valley in the late eighties and taking undue advantage of their absence, the petitioners in connivance with the revenue officials, managed the impugned mutations in contrary to law and in derogation of factual position. They have further pleaded that the impugned orders of the mutations are in ex-parte against the provisions of standing order No. 23-A, as the respondents were the migrants at Jammu at the time of the culmination of the mutations. 3. The respondents herein have challenged the attestation of mutations before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Bandipora on 23.06.2009 who has passed a detailed judgment vide his order dated 26.08.2010 wherein he has quashed the mutation No. 718, 719 and 743. 3. The respondents herein have challenged the attestation of mutations before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Bandipora on 23.06.2009 who has passed a detailed judgment vide his order dated 26.08.2010 wherein he has quashed the mutation No. 718, 719 and 743. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Bandipora dated 26.10.2010 filed revision against the said order before this Tribunal on 09.01.2010 which stand decided by this Tribunal on 23.07.2014 wherein this Tribunal has accepted the revision petition and remanded the case back to the Appellate Authority for passing a fresh order after visiting the site and dispose of the objections with regard to personal cultivation of the land and finally decided the appeal after hearing both side on merits under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act. This Tribunal has passed order dated 23.07.2014, has observed that the Appellate Authority (Court below) has not follow the mandate of Rule 50 of Agrarian Reforms Rules and have decided the case in a hurry. After that the court below has passed a fresh order dated 02.01.2015, which is impugned. 4. Heard Learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the record available on file and record called from the court below. 5. While going through the impugned order dated 02.01.2015, the court below has followed the directions passed by this Tribunal vide its judgment dated 23.07.2014. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Bandipora has visited on spot on 02.12.2014 after serving notices to the parties and subordinate revenue agencies for their attendance along with the relevant records also heard the statements of the village body and recorded the same on spot. The witnesses recorded on spot by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Bandipora have deposed that the land in question was proprietary of one Aftab Koul and continue to be in his personal cultivation prior to and after 1971 until 1977 in the year he died and after his death the same came to be in cultivating possession of his legal heirs vis-à-vis. Janki Nath, Lasa Koul, Kanaya Lal and Raj Nath and accordingly inheritance mutation was sanctioned in their favour in the year 1983. Janki Nath, Lasa Koul, Kanaya Lal and Raj Nath and accordingly inheritance mutation was sanctioned in their favour in the year 1983. As per the order passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms dated 02.01.2015, the village body also narrated that the respondent was helping the owners in managing the suit land and it has also come to the fore that the land in question was kept under care and control of one Mst. Saida Begum W/O. Late Gh. Mohammad Lone by the respondents herein when the respondents herein left the valley in the wake of bad law and order situation. 6. The court below has come to the conclusion that the land in question proved not to be in cultivation of the appellant herein but in personal cultivation of the last estate holder in kharief 1971 and there was hardly any landlord-tenant relationship existing between the last estate holder and the respondents. The impugned mutations have been conducted against the relevant provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and the Rules framed thereunder and the court below has held that the impugned mutations are not sustainable under land and hence, set aside. 7. The appellants herein have challenged the impugned order submitting that the impugned order is bad as the Commissioner has accepted the mutation No. 718 Sehat Kasht in presence of Janki Nath Koul and Lassa Koul and resultantly the land vested with state by virtue of section 4 under mutation No. 719. Which mutation was perhaps set aside illegally and that too without hearing the petitioner. The basic grievance of the respondents was that the property in dispute is migrant property which they failed to prove before various forms but the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms without legal jurisdiction and reasons held that the land does not fall under the purview of Agrarian Reforms Act, which is patently wrong and illegal. 8. From the perusal of mutation No. 718 (Sehat Kasht), it is seen that the mutation has been attested by the other co-sharers in the name of Janki Nath Koul and Lassa Koul co-sharers and there is no mention of appellant herein Abdul Ahad S/o. Ahmad Mir. Therefore, the mutation No. 719 attested under section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act has no base. Therefore, the mutation No. 719 attested under section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act has no base. It has been clearly proved by the respondents herein that the land measuring 8 kanals and 17 marlas under khasra No. 1484 was under the self-cultivation of Janki Nath and Lasa Koul Ss/o Aftab Koul shareholders instead of self-cultivated (Khud Kasht). This action is also against rules as mutations under section 4 & 8 are not allowed in case of co-sharers. There is no mention of the petitioner herein Abdul Ahad Mir. But surprisingly the mutation under section 4 and 8 has been attested in the name of petitioner herein making mutation No. 718 (Sehat Kasht) its base. Viewed thus, this tribunal has come to the conclusion that order passed by the Appellate Authority in consonance with the Agrarian Reforms Act and Rules framed thereunder. Also the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, has followed the mandate of Rule 50 of Agrarian Reforms Rules and decided the case in accordance with law envisaged under the Act and Rules thereunder. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order. The revision is meritless deserves to be dismissed. I accordingly dismiss the revision petition and order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Bandipora dated 02.01.2015 is upheld. The court below file, if called, be send down along with the copy of this order. File shall go to records after its due completion.