HOSHNAK Vs. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, J&K
LAWS(J&K)-2006-9-12
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on September 18,2006

Hoshnak Appellant
VERSUS
Special Tribunal, JAndK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) DISPUTE raised in this petition pertains to land measuring 3 kanals and 15 marlas, comprised in Khasra No. 1562, situated in village Jandyal, Tehsil Jammu. Hoshnak, the petitioner, says that this land was mortgaged to him on 06 -03 -1975 by one Beli Ram son of Sarsa Ram. It is claimed by the petitioner that Beli Ram had, subsequently executed an agreement to sell on 08 -05 -1978 after taking full price of the land from the petitioner. He says that it was due to ignorance and illiteracy that a wrong Khasra number, i.e., Khasra No. 1538, came to be recorded in the agreement to sell. He says that this mistake remained undetected till 1991. Ram Singh, the fourth respondent, is stated by the petitioner to have succeeded to the rights of Bel i Ram, who is reported to have died issueless.
(2.) THE fourth respondent filed an application for redemption of mortgage under Section 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, in respect of land, comprised in Khasra No. 1562, measuring 3 kanals and 15 marlas, situated in village Jandyal. This application was allowed by Assistant Settlement Officer exercising powers of a Collector under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, directing restitution of the land vide his order dated 30th of June, 2000. An appeal preferred by the writ petitioner was dismissed by Director, Land Records, in exercise of his powers as Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms. Petitioners approach to the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, by way of a Revision, too remained unsuccessful with the dismissal of the Revision Petition on 10lh of March, 2004.
(3.) THE petitioner has filed this petition questioning the three orders passed by the Authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. Mr. D.R. Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the findings of the Authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. Learned counsel adds that the transaction of Mortgage executed by the petitioner in the year 1975 was illegal because there was a total ban on alienation of land in 1975 and this alienation included mortgage too. The Authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, therefore, had no jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, because such powers could be exercised only if there was a valid mortgage between the parties.;


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