Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jagdev Singh vs Ut Of J&K Through Secretary on 4 August, 2025
S. No. 154 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- WP(C) No.2087/2025 CM No. 4761/2025 Jagdev Singh, Age 60 years .....Petitioner(s) S/o Late Sh. Dhian Singh R/o Village Amuwala, Tehsil Ramkot District Kathua Through: Mr. Sunil Dutt Sharma, Advocate Vs 1. UT of J&K through Secretary, Revenue ..... Respondent(s) Department, J&K Govt. Jammu/Srinagar. 2. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Agrarian Reforms) Billawar, District Kathua. 3. Sub-District Magistrate, Basholi, District Kathua. 4. Hans Raj S/o Bhagtu, R/o Village Amuwala, Tehsil Ramkot, District Kathua. 5. Laxman Singh S/o Late Sh. Dhyan Singh, R/o ....Performa Respondent(s) Village Amuwala, Tehsil Ramkot, District Kathua. 6. Mukhtiar Singh S/o Late Sh. Dhyan Singh, R/o Village Amuwala Tehsil Ramkot, District Kathua. 7. Jai Singh S/o Late Sh. Dhyan Singh, R/o Village Amuwala Tehsil Ramkot, District Kathua. 8. Hukam Singh S/o Late Sh. Dhyan Singh, R/o Village Amuwala Tehsil Ramkot, District Kathua. 9. Kamal Singh S/o Late Sh. Dhyan Singh, R/o Village Amuwala Tehsil Ramkot, District Kathua. 10. Jagdish Singh; 11. Anant Singh; 12. Bachhiter Singh, All sons of Sarnu; All residence of Village Amuwala Tehsil Ramkot, District Kathua. Through: 2 WP(C) No. 2087/2025 Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER
(04.08.2025)
01. The petitioner through the medium of instant petition has sought the
following reliefs.
i) Writ of Certiorari: thereby quashing the order passed by
respondent No.2 dated 11.04.2023 in File No. ADC/Blr/Agr/245
and Order dated 07.04.2025 in File No. ADC/Bir/14/2024 with
respect to the land measuring 04 Kanal and 16 Marla comprising
in Khasra No. 553 situated at Village Amuwala, Tehsil Billawar,
District Kathua, thereby the appeal of an order passed by Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Basohli dated 14.06.2006 was dismissed
by the respondent No.2 in a File No. ADC/BLR/AGR/245 and
application of the restoration of the abovesaid appeal in a File
No. ADC/BLR/14/2024 dated 07.04.2025.
ii) Writ of Mandamus: thereby directing the respondent No.2 for
providing an opportunity to the petitioner and performa
respondents No.5 to 12 of being heard and for deciding the
appeal filed by the petitioner and performa respondents No2. 5-
12 against the order passed by respondent No.2. A further
direction be passed to the respondent No.2 that in view of the
submissions made above and till the appeal is not restored after
the acceptance of the restoration application, not to issue the
directions for the eviction of the petitioner and performa
respondents No. 5 to 12 from the land measuring 04 Kanal and
16 Marla comprising in Khasra No. 553 situated at Village
Amuwala, Tehsil Billawar Now Ramkot.
02. The case, as projected in the instant petition, is that the mother of the
petitioner and proforma respondents 5 to 12 together with one Late Sarnu
and Dhian Singh, the father of proforma respondents 11 to 13 were the
3 WP(C) No. 2087/2025
owners of a piece of land measuring 04 Kanal and 16 Marla comprising
Khasra No. 553 situated at Village Amuwala, Tehsil Billawar, District
Kathua as the aforesaid land remained under the cultivating possession of
the father of respondent No.4 as occupancy tenant before 1967.
03. It is further pleaded that the aforesaid land came under the physical
cultivating possession of late Smt. Achhru W/o Late Dhian Singh and
proforma respondents 5 to 12 and since then, the aforesaid land is in
continuous physical settled actual cultivating possession of the mother of
the petitioner along with proforma respondents 5 to 12. It is further pleaded
that at the time of the death of Late Bhagtu, the age of the respondent No.4
was just one year and despite of the physical possession over the
aforestated piece of land was with Acchru, the petitioner and performa
respondents 5 to 12, but entry of the Khasra Girdwari for the said land was
continued to be recorded in favour of respondent No.4 as Maroosi, whereas
the petitioner along with his deceased mother late Achhru and the performa
respondents 5 to 12 were continuously occupying and cultivating the land.
04. It is further pleaded that respondent No.4 taking the benefit on the strength
of Khasra Girdwari entry, wherein his name has been entered as “Maroosi”,
is claiming his right and have started compelling the petitioner and the
performa respondents 5 to 12 to handover the possession of the said land
despite of the fact that the Khasra Girdwari of the village Amuwala for the
aforestated land had also attested in favour of the father of the petitioner
and performa respondents 5 to 12 with 50% share of the aforesaid land in
favour of one Sarnu S/o Chagra as protected cultivator.
4 WP(C) No. 2087/2025
05. It is further pleaded that respondent No.4 had approached the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate Basohli under Section 27 of the Agrarian Reforms
Act by virtue of which he sought the eviction of the mother of the
petitioner and the performa respondents 5 to 12 and to get the vacant
possession of the land as stated above. Upon which, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate Basohli has passed the order dated 14.06.2006 by virtue of
which Tehsildar Billawar was directed to ensure for the handing of the
possession of the land to the respondent No.4. The mother of the petitioner
and performa respondents 5 to 9 and mother of performa respondents 10 to
12 have challenged the order of SDM Basohli dated 14.06.2006 before the
Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (Additional Deputy Commissioner,
Kathua) in the appeal by virtue of which SDM Basohli had ordered the
restoration of the possession of the land measuring 04 Kanals 16 Marlas
comprising Khasra No. 553 situated at Village Amuwala, Tehsil Billawar,
District Kathua in terms of Section 27 of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976
and made a prayer for setting aside the same. However, after the transfer of
the appeal to the office of ADC Billawar, in absence of the proper service
of the petitioner and performa respondents 5 to 12 and respondent No.2,
dismissed the appeal in default of non-appearance on 11.04.2023 without
affording an opportunity of being heard.
06. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned orders, the petitioner has challenged the
same by way of the instant petition on the following grounds:
a) That the order impugned dated 11.04.2023 have been passed by the
respondent no. 2 in a very haste manner and no enquiry was
conducted so as to ascertain whether the summons for the
5 WP(C) No. 2087/2025appearance of petitioner and performa respondents no. 05-12 was
properly and legally effected.
b) That the respondent no.2 did not follow the provision under order 5
of CPC for the service of the petitioner and performa respondent
No.05-12. Thus, the order dated 11.04.2023 deserves to be set
aside.
c) That the petitioner and performa respondents no. 05-12 are the
residents of village Ammuwala, Tehsil Billawar District Kathua but
the Tehsildar Ramkot instead of sending the summons for the
service of the petitioner and performa respondents no. 05- 12 to the
chowkidar of village Amuwala but the summons were deliberately
send to a chowkidar of the village i.e., Galak which was against the
legal position for the service and thus, there could arose no
occasion for the petitioner and performa respondents no. 05-12 to
get the information with regard to the pendency of the appeal
before the respondent no.2.
d) That the order impugned dated 11.04.2023 against the petitioner
and performa respondent nos. 05-12 without affording an
opportunity to them for being heard and the order have been passed
against the principal of natural justice and therefore requires to be
set aside.
e) That the respondent No. 2 in view of the submissions made above,
wrongly held that the petitioner and performa respondents no. 05-
12 are not interested in pursuing the appeal but it was all due to the
fact that the petitioner and performa respondents nos. 05-12 had not
been served and had no knowledge about the pendency of the
appeal.
f) That the order impugned dated 11.04.2023 seems to have been
passed in a very haste manner in which the respondent no. 2 had
dismissed the appeal in default of appearance of the appellants
(petitioner and performa respondents no. 05-12 herein), meaning
thereby, that the petitioner and performa respondents no. 05-12
(Appellants therein) were present at the time of the passing of the
order impugned.
g) That the order impugned dated 11.04.2023 indicates that the
respondent no. 2 have held that the appellants(petitioner and
performa respondents no. 05-12 herein) are not attending the appeal
and remained absent right from 25.06.2019, which incidentally is
the date of the institution of the appeal against the order of SDM
Basholi dated 14.06.2006 is absolutely not possible because no
appeal in absence of the appellant could be filed.
h) That the order impugned dated 07 .04.2025 have been passed
without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and performa
6 WP(C) No. 2087/2025
respondent nos. 05- 12 to adduce the evidence to the fact to prove
the delay in filing the application for the restoration of the appeal.
i) That the court dismissed the restoration application vide its order
dated 07.04.2025 only on the ground that there was no separate
application for the Condonation of delay for filing the restoration
application for the appeal but in a pronouncement by the Apex
Court that if the grounds for Condonation of delay is made in the
application for’ restoration, then there is no need to file a separate
application for the Condonation of delay.
07. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it has come to the
knowledge of the mother of the petitioner that no notice was served upon
the applicants, which has been reflected in the dismissal order dated
11.04.2023 that the parties were summoned through Tehsildar Ramkot and
the service was effected through Ganesh Kumar Chokidar of village Galak
(Ramkot) but the said Chokidar never served any notice nor obtained any
signature or thumb impression of any applicants/appellants, which was
very much evident from the record of this file.
08. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to
the non-service of the notice, the appellants herein could not plead their
appeal and the Court vide order dated 11.04.2023 dismissed the appeal in
default of non-appearance of the applicants.
09. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that they got knowledge of the
passing of the order, when Tehsildar Ramkot served the notice of execution
of impugned order under appeal on the application filed by the respondent
and directed the appellants to appear on 28.05.2024. After service of notice
of Tehsildar Ramkot for execution of impugned order of SDM Basohli, the
appellants therein came to know about the appeal being dismissed in
7 WP(C) No. 2087/2025
default by the Court vide order dated 11.04.2023 and thereafter the
application for restoration of the said appeal was filed.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
11. The record reveals that the restoration application which was filed on
27.05.2024 by the mother of the petitioner was bereft of any merit and the
applicants could not make out a case for restoration of the appeal, which
was dismissed in default on 11.04.2023 after following proper procedure of
service of the applicants.
12. Record further reveals that the mother of the petitioner filed the restoration
application after a lapse of more than one year from the date of dismissal
order without filing any application for condonation of delay and the
restoration application was not accompanied with the condonation of delay
application. Even the averments which have been pleaded in the restoration
application proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the applicants therein
had the knowledge about the appeal, as the file was received before the said
Court on 25.06.2019 but despite knowledge of the appeal, the applicants
did not appear knowing fully well that the appeal has been transferred from
ADC with the powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Kathua before
the Court on 25.06.2019 and was pending disposal before the said Court
and the service of the applicants was also effected.
13. Since the mother of the petitioner failed to make out any plausible reason
for restoration of the said application, which was filed after a lapse of one
year and that too without condonation of delay and was rightly dismissed.
Since, the restoration application was not accompanied with the application
for condonation of delay and the service was also effected upon the
8 WP(C) No. 2087/2025
appellants therein, so the application for restoration was rightly dismissed
and the status quo was vacated. The petitioner could not satisfy this Court
any compelling reason or such justification, which could be basis for
interfering the order impugned. The order passed by the Additional Deputy
Commissioner exercising the powers as Commissioner Agrarian Reforms
cannot be faulted, which is perfectly legal, justified and in accordance with
law. This Court do not find any legal infirmity with the same and challenge
thrown to the same is devoid of any merit and the writ petition which is
utterly misconceived deserves dismissal and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed in limine.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
04.08.2025
Mihul
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
Mihul Singh
2025.08.05 18:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document