MOHD SUBHAN Vs. STATE OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-2006-10-22
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on October 11,2006

Mohd Subhan Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS writ petition is on the board of this Court for the last more than 12 years. A short point is involved in this petition.
(2.) IT appears that Tehsildar (Assistant Collector Agrarian Reforms) Ganderbal, passed a mutation No.691 in terms of Rule 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Rules, hereinafter for short Rules, whereby the entries in khasra girdawari in respect of land measuring 4 kanals falling under survey No.60 min situated at Village Shuhama, Tehsil Ganderbal, came to be corrected and the writ petitioner Mohammad Magray came to be recorded in possession of the land as tenant right from kharief 1971 and accordingly came to be declared as prospective owner in terms of Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, hereinafter for short the Act. Thereafter, Tehsildar (Assistant Collector Agrarian Reforms) Ganderbal, passed another mutation No.704 under Section 8 of the Act in favour of Mohammad Magray, writ petitioner. Feeling aggrieved of the mutation orders, respondents, namely, Wali Rather, Ghulam Mohammad Rather, Mst. Zooni and Mst. Khatija had preferred an appeal against the said mutation orders before Financial Commissioner and Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu & Kashmir State, Srinagar, which came to be dismissed with direction to the Tehsildar concerned to ascertain the factum of possession on spot to the extent of each co -sharers share and also passed a restraint order directing the parties not to interfere with the possession of each other. It is profitable to reproduce operative part of the said order herein, which reads as under: "Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence the appeals are rejected and impugned orders are upheld with the directions that the order under appeal applies to Walis portion only and does not interfere with the portion of Karim co -sharer. The Tehsildar concerned is directed to ascertain the factum of possession on spot to the extent of each co -sharers share and direct the parties not to interfere with each others share. The appeal files shall be consigned to records after due completion."
(3.) WALI Rather, one of the respondent feeling aggrieved of the order of appellate court preferred a revision petition before the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Srinagar, and arrayed Mohammad Magray and other co -sharers, who were respondents in the appeal before the appellate court, as respondents. J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar, set -aside the order of appellate court as also the mutation orders with further direction to Collector Land Acquisition to determine the apportionment of the compensation. It is profitable to reproduce the operative part of the order passed by J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar, herein, which reads as under: "The impugned order of the learned Financial Commissioner is a fit order to be interfered with by the revisional authority. The order cannot be allowed to remain in tact and the same is set aside. Reasons have already been given. The observations are sufficient ground that the mutations should also be set aside and are set -aside. This is also necessary because the collector concerned should not get fettered by such mutations which have been attested in disregard of legal provisions and procedure, while deciding the apportionment of the compensation. The authorities have to be most careful while deciding the matters which involve the property rights of the citizens." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.