Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 477 (JK)

Om Parkash v. State of J&K

2020-09-14

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL

body2020
ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved of an order dated 10.07.2012, passed by respondent No. 2- J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (for brevity ‘Tribunal’) whereby order of the respondent No. 3-Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu) has been upheld and the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner’s case is that land measuring 2 kanals and 2 marlas and land measuring 13 marla in Khasra No. 202 and 204 situated in village Lengeth Tehsil Samba, District Jammu was mutated in favour of his elder brother Hoshiara and father of the petitioner in the years 2007 Bk. The said order of attesting of mutation was assailed before the Collector by the respondents under the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, who remanded the case to Tehsildar vide order 18.12.1956. In the year 1991 mutation under Section 6 of Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of land aforementioned was attested in favour of the respondents. The said order of Tehsildar was challenged by the petitioner before the respondent No. 3-Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu) in appeal which was decided on 02.06.2001 and order of the Tehsildar, where by mutation attested in favour of the respondents under Section 6 was set aside. Respondent No. 3-Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu), while deciding the appeal also directed the Tehsildar to decide the case in terms of the order of remand passed by the Collector Deputy Commissioner under Big Landed Estates Abolition, Act. The petitioner challenged this part of the order before the respondent No. 2-Tribunal and the order impugned was upheld and revision dismissed. 3. The order has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that the orders are contrary, against the law, because order dated 18.12.1956 cannot be implemented at this stage and that Joint Agrarian Reforms, Commissioner is not an authority under the Agrarian Reforms, Act. The order dated 18.12.1956 cannot be implemented at this stage because after the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, the Agrarian Reforms Act came into force. The order dated 18.12.1956 cannot be implemented at this stage because after the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, the Agrarian Reforms Act came into force. The order of the Tribunal has been challenged, precisely on the ground that the same is perverse, contrary to the facts and the finding of respondent No. 3 is against law, as the order dated 18.12.1956, could not be implemented at this stage and that respondent No. 3- Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu was not an authority under the Agrarian Reforms Act, after the abolition of the Big Landed Estates Abolition, Act came into force. 4. The respondents 4,5,7,10,16 and 18 in their objections have challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the respondent 1, and 7 to 19 are neither necessary nor proper parties, only respondents 4 to 6 are interested and involved in the litigation. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person within the measuring of section 21 of the Agrarian Reforms, Act and has thus no locus standi, as the land is Abadi Deh and Gair Mumkin which has been mutated in favour of Basant Singh, grandfather of respondents 4 to 7. The revision before the respondent No. 2 was not maintainable as the same was filed after a period of six years and there was no question of law or of public importance involved as is required under the provisions of Section 21 (2) of the Agrarian Reforms, Act. 1976. The order of respondent No. 3-Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu) dated 28.08.1988 has already been implemented vide mutation no. 311, as such, nothing survives in the writ petition. Moreover, the writ petition has been filed against a dead person i.e., respondent No. 8 who had expired on 07.07.2000 i.e. during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No. 3. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the file. 6. From the record of the file it is evident that order was passed by the collector under the Big Landed Estates Abolition, Act on 18.12.1956, whereby the Tehsildar was directed to pass fresh order of mutation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the file. 6. From the record of the file it is evident that order was passed by the collector under the Big Landed Estates Abolition, Act on 18.12.1956, whereby the Tehsildar was directed to pass fresh order of mutation. The said order however, was not complied with, as is evident from the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 as well as respondent No. 3, when the mutation under Section 6 was attested on the basis of order passed on 28.08.1988, the said order of mutation was challenged before the respondent No. 3-Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu), in appeal filed by the petitioner herein. The said appeal was allowed on 02.06.2002, mutation was set aside by observing that the order of the Collector passed on 28.08.1988 has not been complied and direction was given to the Tehsildar concerned to comply with the same. This part of the order passed by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner came to be challenged before the J&K Special Tribunal in revision petition which was filed on 10.07.2007, whereas the order which was sought to be revised was passed by the respondent No. 3 on 02.06.2001.The revision was thus filed after more than six years. No reason has been shown for such delay in the said revision petition. Record of the file reveals that on the basis of order passed by the respondent No. 3-Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu) mutation was attested and order was complied on 05.04.2006 i.e., much before the filing of the revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal. This fact has also been concealed in revision petition. The petitioner has nowhere disclosed in revision petition that the order impugned stands implemented. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 10.07.2012 and this writ petition has been filed on 1.04.2013, why the petitioner waited for more than one year for challenging the order of respondent No. 2 is also not explained. The conduct of the petitioner show that he had concealed the material fact i.e., implementation of the order passed by respondent No. 3, about more than one year prior to the filing of the revision petition before respondent No. 2, nor the said fact has been disclosed in the writ petition. The conduct of the petitioner show that he had concealed the material fact i.e., implementation of the order passed by respondent No. 3, about more than one year prior to the filing of the revision petition before respondent No. 2, nor the said fact has been disclosed in the writ petition. The order had already been complied with before the revision was filed before the Tribunal and, as such, neither the revision petition was maintainable nor this writ petition is maintainable. The writ petition is held to be misconceived, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. Interim direction shall stand vacated.