Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 12 (JK)

Jammu Development Authority v. Beant Kour

2021-02-05

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, PUNEET GUPTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Magrey, J. Through Virtual Mode 1. This intra Court appeal, under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment dated 10th of February, 2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No.1625/2013, whereby the petition of the appellant/ petitioner authority stands dismissed alongwith two other Writ petitions, being OWP Nos. 1619/2013 and 1793/2013. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal, as come to the limelight from the perusal of the pleadings on record, are that the appellant/ petitioner authority claims that the land measuring 39 Kanals and 02 Marlas, comprising Kh. No. 328 Min and situated in Village Channi, Rama, Jammu, is vested in it and, therefore, could not have been made subject matter of allotment in favour of the respondent No.1 by the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu. The appellant/petitioner authority claims that Khasra No.328 of revenue village Channi Rama, Tehsil Jammu is a big chunk of land measuring 432 Kanals and 11 Marlas and was originally the State land recorded as “Mehkama Shikar-Gah”. In terms of Government Order No. REV (NDJ) 46 of 1973 dated 28th of January, 1973, out of the aforesaid land, 274 Kanals and 11 Marlas was transferred by the State/Nazool Department in favour of the appellant/petitioner authority. The appellant/ petitioner authority alleged that respondent No.1, in connivance with the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu, got a chunk of land measuring 39 Kanals and 02 Marlas out of the land vested in the appellant/petitioner authority, allotted in her favour on the plea that her originally allotted evacuee land situated in village Gole Pattan and Chattha Gujjran, Tehsil Jammu had been washed away. This was done by the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu, vide its order bearing No.658/92-93 dated 22nd of December, 1992. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Jammu Development Authority took up the matter with the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu and, accordingly, the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu invoked suo moto powers of review and cancelled the allotment of the respondent No.1 in terms of order No. 250-54/93-94 dated 14th of August, 1993. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 challenged the order of cancellation of allotment by medium of a Revision Petition filed before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, wherein the order of cancellation dated 14th of August, 1993 (supra) passed by the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu was set aside by order dated 6th of June, 1996. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 challenged the order of cancellation of allotment by medium of a Revision Petition filed before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, wherein the order of cancellation dated 14th of August, 1993 (supra) passed by the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu was set aside by order dated 6th of June, 1996. The appellant/ petitioner authority assailed the order of the Tribunal in OWP No. 1072/1996, which petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 4th of February, 2000 with the direction to the State/Revenue Department to earmark the area/land which had vested in the Jammu Development Authority. It was further ordered by the learned Single Judge that any observation made by the Tribunal with regard to the ownership of the appellant/ petitioner authority qua the land in question would not be taken as a final expression of opinion. Being aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the respondent No.1 filed Letters Patent Appeal, being LPA(OW) No. 333/2000, which was dismissed by the Division Bench as withdrawn vide judgment dated 6th of May, 2003. During the pendency of the aforesaid LPA, the respondent No.1 got the mutation of ownership attested from the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2, in turn and vide Mutation No.1562 dated 31st of May, 2001, conferred proprietary rights upon respondent No.1 purportedly in terms of the Government Order No. 254-C of 1965, thereby making it axiomatic that the respondent No.1 withdrew the LPA filed by her only after she had been conferred the ownership rights qua the subject land in terms of Mutation No.1562 dated 31st of May, 2001 attested by the respondent No.2. The appellant/ petitioner authority challenged the Mutation No.1562 dated 31st of May, 2001 (supra) before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu by way of Revision Petition and the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, however, in terms of order dated 8th of June, 2007, while maintaining the order of mutation, dismissed the Revision Petition. Against this order of the Divisional Commissioner, the appellant/ petitioner authority preferred further Revision Petition before the Joint Financial Commissioner (AR) Jammu with the powers of Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu. It is worthwhile to mention here that while the Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) was pending adjudication, the Government constituted a High Level Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State to deliberate on the issue. It is worthwhile to mention here that while the Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) was pending adjudication, the Government constituted a High Level Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State to deliberate on the issue. The Committee held its meeting dated 24th of June, 2010 and took several decisions, including the one to identify the Officer, who had attested the mutation subject matter of challenge before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu. Ultimately, the Revision Petition came up for consideration before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu, who in terms of judgment dated 28th of June, 2013, dismissed the Revision Petition and upheld the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu dated 8th of June, 2007. The appellant/ petitioner authority, feeling aggrieved of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu, challenged the same through the medium of Writ petition bearing OWP No.1625/2013, which petition, alongwith two other petitions (OWP Nos. 1619/2013 and 1793/2013), came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge in terms of judgment dated 10th of February, 2020. This judgment of the learned Single Judge is under challenge before us in the instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge without appreciating the controversy involved in its true and proper perspective. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 could not have attested the mutation qua the subject land until the land vested in the appellant/ petitioner authority had been demarcated in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in OWP No.1072/1996. It is pleaded that the allotment of the land belonging to the appellant/ petitioner authority in favour of the respondent No.1 was a nullity in the eyes of law and, therefore, no mutation conferring proprietary rights on the respondent No.1 on the basis of the illegal allotment could have been attested by the respondent No.2. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that no mutation could have been attested by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.1 purportedly under Government Order No.254-C of 1965 with respect to the land belonging to the appellant/ petitioner authority and that the conditions laid down in Government Order were not fully satisfied. It is also averred by the appellant/ petitioner authority that, firstly, the revenue authorities misdirected themselves in appreciating the controversy and thus, came to an erroneous conclusion that pursuant to the demarcation done, the area/land vested in the Jammu Development Authority had been earmarked and, secondly, the learned Single Judge, even though having been apprised of the actual facts, also did not find favour with the submissions urged by the appellant/ petitioner authority. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, in unison, submitted that the controversy involved in the instant matter stands settled by the revenue authorities and, thereafter, confirmed by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, that is impugned herein this appeal. It is submitted that the appellant/ petitioner authority has no locus standi to call in question either the allotment made by the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu in favour of respondent No.1 or the mutation of ownership rights attested by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 by medium of the writ petition as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge, moreso, when the State is not aggrieved either by the allotment of the land made in favour of the appellant/ petitioner authority or subsequent mutation of conferment of proprietary rights on the respondent No.1, attested by the respondent No.2. It is averred that the mutation, which was subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench and Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu was nothing, but, an offshoot of the allotment made in favour of the respondent No.1. The allotment of the respondent No.1, which was challenged by the appellant/ petitioner authority, has been upheld by all the forums including the learned Single Judge. It is, thus, submitted that once the Court has not held the allotment in favour of the respondent No.1 bad, no fault can be found with the mutation attested by the respondent No.2 to confer proprietary rights on the respondent No.1 in terms of Government Order No.254-C of 1965. It is also contended that after conferment of the proprietary rights, the respondent No.1 has sold the subject land to different persons by executing as many as 19 sale deeds, which are duly registered before the competent registering authority and that she has already delivered the vacant possession of the land in favour of the Vendees, therefore, the Writ petition was fait accompli. It is next pleaded that the subject land was allotted to the respondent No.1 in lieu of the land allotted to her as a displaced person, which land had got washed away. The allotment was made subject matter of challenge by the appellant/ petitioner authority before the different Revenue Forums and, ultimately, the challenge of the appellant/ petitioner authority failed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 6. The sole ground on which the petition of the appellant/ petitioner authority stands dismissed by the learned Single judge in terms of the impugned judgment is that the appellant/ petitioner authority was found to be without any locus standi to maintain the Writ petition. In this backdrop, we, in this appeal, are only called upon to test the validity of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. At the very outset, what requires to be stated is that the allotment of the subject land made by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.1, which was subsequently cancelled by the respondent No.2 in exercise of suo moto powers of review, has remained intact. The cancellation of allotment ordered by the respondent No.2 was set aside by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu in Revision Petition filed by the respondent No.1. The order of the J&K Special Tribunal was further assailed by the appellant/ petitioner authority in OWP No.1072/1996 and the Writ petition was disposed of on 4th of February, 2000 by directing the State to earmark the area which has been given to the Jammu Development Authority in presence of the respondent No.2. This order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in LPA(OW) No. 333/2000 by the respondent No.1, but, later on the aforesaid LPA was withdrawn and the same was, accordingly, dismissed on 6th of May, 2000. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 4th of February, 2000 passed in OWP No.1072/1996, thus, attained finality. This order, however, instead of returning a finding on the issue of legality or otherwise of the allotment has disposed of the controversy by assuming that the dispute with regard to the allotment raised by the Jammu Development Authority is one primarily of identification of subject land. This order, however, instead of returning a finding on the issue of legality or otherwise of the allotment has disposed of the controversy by assuming that the dispute with regard to the allotment raised by the Jammu Development Authority is one primarily of identification of subject land. The Court appears to have presumed the land allotted by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 may be a land different from the one, i.e., vested in the appellant/ petitioner authority by virtue of Government Order No. REV (NDJ) 46 of 1973 dated 28th of January, 1973 and, thus, proceeded to direct the Revenue Department to earmark the land, which is vested in the appellant/ petitioner authority. The order does not say anything further, but, as a necessary corollary, if upon demarcation, it was found that the land allotted in favour of respondent No.1 is a part of the land, which is vested in the Jammu Development Authority in terms of Government Order REV No. (NDJ) 46 of 1973 dated 28th of January, 1973, the allotment in favour of the appellant/ petitioner authority qua the subject land was to go. In this context, from the perusal of the pleadings it is axiomatic that in compliance to the judgment of the learned Single Judge 4th of February, 2000 passed in OWP No. 1072/1996, the demarcation has been carried on more than one occasion and it has been found that the land, which is subject matter of allotment and mutation attested in favour of respondent No.1 is not a part of chunk of land transferred to the appellant/ petitioner authority in terms of Government Order No. REV(NDJ) 46 of 1973 dated 28th of January, 1973. The demarcation reports have not been assailed either by the Jammu Development Authority or by the Department of Revenue of the State. The demarcation reports have not been assailed either by the Jammu Development Authority or by the Department of Revenue of the State. The genuineness or otherwise of the allotment of the State land made by Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu in favour of respondent No.1 and the mutation attested by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 in terms of Government Order No. 254-C of 1965 does not fall within the domain of the appellant/ petitioner authority, when it has been established that the land allotted and mutated in favour of respondent No.1 is a State land and different from the land which has been transferred by the State to the appellant/ petitioner authority in terms of the Government Order No. REV(NDJ) 46 of 1973 dated 28th of January, 1973. It is only in the event the appellant/ petitioner authority establishes, by cogent material on record, that the subject land was a part of chunk of land, which was transferred in favour of the appellant/ petitioner authority by the State in terms of Government Order No. REV(NDJ) 46 of 1973 dated 28th of January, 1973 that it would get locus standi to challenge the allotment as also the mutation. The appellant/ petitioner authority failed to demonstrate the aforesaid aspect not only before the learned Single Judge, but also before this Court and, thus, cannot be said to have any locus standi to challenge the allotment and mutation or the order of Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu, whereby the mutation attested in favour of the respondent No.1 has been upheld. 8. True it is that when the mutation was attested by the respondent No.2 conferring ownership rights upon the respondent No.1, the matter was sub judice before the Division Bench in LPA No.333/2000 and no demarcation in terms of the judgment of Single Bench dated 4th of February, 2000 had taken place, but, it is admitted fact that later on, after withdrawal of the LPA by the respondent No.1, the demarcation was undertaken to earmark the land belonging to the Jammu Development Authority, wherein it was found that the subject land, which has been allotted in favour of the respondent No.1 and later on mutated, was, in fact, not a part of the chunk of the land transferred to the appellant/ petitioner authority by the State in terms of Government Order No. REV(NDJ) 46 of 1973 dated 28th of January, 1973. Thus, with the actual demarcation having been made by the State, no fault can be found with the order of mutation, particularly, at the instance of the appellant/ petitioner authority. The allotment of the land made by the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu in favour of respondent No.1 and subsequent attestation of the mutation of ownership by respondent No.2, purportedly in terms of Government Order No. 254-C of 1965, if in violation of the law, could be taken care of by the State by invoking appropriate remedy if available, but, the appellant/ petitioner authority, in no circumstances, could have any locus standi in the matter to file the Writ petition. 9. Apart from the above, the pleadings on record also establish it beyond any shadow of doubt that the demarcation had been conducted multiple times, wherein it was found that the land of the respondent no.1 was outside the land of the Jammu Development Authority and, as such, the appellant/ petitioner authority had no locus standi to file the Writ petition. In this behalf, the decision of the Board of Directors of the appellant/ petitioner authority, taken in its 80th meeting, further clinches the issue, wherein it was resolved that in view of the order of the High Court resulting in demarcation of the land in question on four occasions, the Jammu Development Authority has no claim. 10. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as would warrant its interference from this Court. That being the position, this appeal fails and shall stand dismissed as such alongwith all connected pending CMs. Interim directions, if any, subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated.