Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 290 (JK)

Shanti Devi v. State

2018-05-10

ALOK ARADHE

body2018
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. The petition is admitted for hearing and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners inter alia seek a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 13.03.2015 passed by the Chairman, J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, by which the revision preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that one Makhan Lal, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was allotted land, comprised under Khasra No. 356/1 admeasuring 10 marlas and land comprised under khasra No. 380 admeasuring 18 kanals and 11 marlas, situate at Village Mankote, Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch. It is averred in the writ petition that aforesaid Makhan Lal was in cultivation possession of the said land for some time. Thereafter, he became seriously ill and was brought' to Jammu for specialized treatment, where he expired. It is also stated that before coming to Jammu for treatment, he entrusted the allotted land to one Gulzar Hussain S/o. Ghulam Mohd. for cultivation purposes as a tenant, who cultivated the said land. After the death of said Makhan Lal, his son transferred the possession of the land to respondent No. 6 under table transactions with an understanding that he would make a statement before the competent authority that in case the land is cancelled from the name of his father, he has no objection. 4. On the statement of Mehmood Ahmed, son of said Gulzar Hussain before the Assistant Custodian, Mendhar and Deputy Custodian, Poonch that in case the land, which is subject matter of dispute is allotted to respondent No. 6, he has no objection. Thereupon, the land has been allotted to respondent No. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision before the Chairman, J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, which was dismissed vide impugned order. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that order passed by the Chairman, J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu is non-speaking one and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. It is further submitted that written, submissions filed before the Chairman, J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu have not been taken note of by Tribunal while passing the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that order passed by the Chairman, J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu is non-speaking one and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. It is further submitted that written, submissions filed before the Chairman, J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu have not been taken note of by Tribunal while passing the impugned order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the order passed by the Chairman, J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu. The Relevant extract of order dated 13.03.2015 reads as under: "The petitioners have failed to place on records in this case a copy of Form-A in the name of Makhan Lal. The records further show that Sham Dass father of Makhan Lal was a registered displaced person as per Form-A. Makhan Lal is a family member of said Sham Dass. The courts below have rightly held that Makhan is not entitled for the land already allotted to Sham Dass a registered displaced person. In my opinion, the courts below have rightly allotted the suit land in favour of respondent No. 1 because he was in cultivating possession of the suit land. I also agree with the courts below that said Makhan Lal was in illegal occupation of the suit land and the allotment shown in revenue records in favour of said Makhan Lal has rightly been cancelled by the courts below. Accordingly, I find no merit in the revision, hence dismissed. Stay order/status quo order, if any, issued in this case by this Tribunal stands vacated. Records be sent back." 6. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is evident that the Tribunal has no, taken note of the written submissions and in a cryptic manner decided the revision preferred by the petitioners. Therefore, order impugned suffers from non-application of mind. 7. In view of the aforesaid said, the order impugned dated 13.03.2015 is quashed and revision is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the same afresh by a speaking order in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed today. The parties undertake to appear before the Tribunal on 21.05.2018. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of along with connected M.P.