Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mohammad Dar vs Chairman J&K Special Tribunal on 9 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 24.04.2025
Pronounced on: 09.05.2025
LPA No.236/2023
MOHAMMAD DAR ...APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. Saqib Amin Parray, Advocate.
Vs.
CHAIRMAN J&K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through:- Mr. G. A. Lone, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Per Sanjeev Kumar ‘J’
1) The bone of contention between the appellant and
respondent No.2 is land measuring 3 kanals and 5 marlas
[“subject land”] comprised in Khasra No.112 of Estate
Balsoo Kulgam. This land was earlier owned by the
appellant. In the entry of Kharif, 1971, the appellant is
recorded as owner in self-cultivation of the subject land.
The subject land came to be mutated in favour of
respondent No.2 under Section 8 of the J&K Agrarian
Reforms Act, 1976 [“the Act of 1976”]. The land measuring
2 kanals was mutated in favour of respondent No.2 under
MIR ARIF MANZOOR Section 8 of the Act of 1976 vide order dated 16th March,
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 1 of 21
1988 passed on mutation No.250. Similarly, land
measuring 1 kanal and 5 marlas out of the subject land
was mutated in favour of respondent No.2 under Section
8 of the Act of 1976 vide mutation No.246 dated 13 th
February, 1988.
2) On 13th April, 2006, the appellant challenged four
mutations, i.e. mutation No.247 dated 7th March, 1988
(under Section 4), mutation No.250 dated 16th March,
1988 (under Section 8), mutation No.244 dated
01.01.1988 (under Section 4) and mutation No.246 dated
13th February, 1988 (under Section 8), by filing four
separate appeals before the Additional Deputy
Commissioner, Anantnag, having powers of
Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms. The appeals were highly
belated and, therefore, were accompanied by applications
for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority i.e.
Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, vide order
dated 11th July, 2006, rejected all the appeals being
grossly barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the appellant filed
a revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal [“the
Tribunal”] challenging the order dated 11th July, 2006,
passed by the ADC, Anantnag. Vide order and judgment
dated 6th October, 2006, the Tribunal allowed the revision
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
petition and set aside all the four mutations above
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 2 of 21
referred. The Tribunal directed restoration of position qua
the subject land as it existed before the attestation of
impugned mutations. The Tribunal also left it open to the
parties to agitate the matter before the civil court for
enforcement of agreement of sale, if any, executed between
the parties.
3) The order of the Tribunal dated 6th October, 2006,
was assailed by the respondent No.2 before the learned
Single Judge of this Court [“the Writ Court”] in OWP
No.744/2006. The Writ Court, having noticed that there
were many factual issues which had not been addressed
by the Tribunal, remanded the matter back to the Tribunal
for re-consideration. This is how the Writ Court vide its
judgment dated 24th August, 2023, quashed the impugned
order of the Tribunal with a view to facilitating the latter
to re-consider the matter. It is this judgment of the Writ
Court dated 24th August, 2023, passed in OWP
No.744/2006, which is impugned before us in this appeal.
4) The judgment impugned has been assailed by the
appellant on the following grounds:
(I) That the Writ Court has not appreciated the fact
that with a view to attract the provisions of the Act
of 1976, the person claiming to be entitled to be
conferred the ownership rights under Section 8 of
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 3 of 21
the Act of 1976 must establish tenant and
landlord relationship between the parties in
existence during Kharif 1971.
(II) That the Writ Court has, without indicating as to
which legal or factual aspects have not been
considered by the Tribunal, remanded the matter
to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
(III) That the appellant was and continues to be the
owner in self-cultivation of the subject land and
the Khasra Girdawari of Kharif, 1971, bears the
testimony of the aforesaid fact. The Tribunal,
having regard to all aspects of the matter and the
manner in which the mutations stood attested by
the revenue officer at the behest of respondent
No.2, rightly concluded that there was no
evidence to establish that respondent No.2 was a
tiller qua the subject land in Kharif, 1971. The Writ
Court, without appreciating the clear findings of
fact recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of the
revenue record, has hasten to hold that there
were many other aspects in the matter required
to be considered by the Tribunal.
(IV) That the Writ Court also did not appreciate the
fact that in a suit for permanent prohibitory
injunction filed by respondent No.2, there is a
categoric admission by the said respondent that
he had purchased the subject land from the
appellant which clearly belies the assertion of the
respondent No.2 that he was a tiller cultivating
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
the subject land in Kharif, 1971 and thereafter.
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 4 of 21
(V) The Revisional Court i.e. the Tribunal, had clearly
seen through the manipulations made by
respondent No.2 in connivance with the revenue
officer and rightly concluded that the mutations
were sham and required to be set aside.
5) Mr. Saqib Amin Parray, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, has laid stress on the aforesaid grounds
of challenge and submits that the judgment passed by the
Writ Court is erroneous both on facts and law and,
therefore, cannot sustain.
6) Per contra, Mr. G. A. Lone, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.2, would submit that the appeal filed by
the appellant under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is not
maintainable against an order of remand passed by the
Writ Court. He would argue that the Writ Court has not
determined finally any rights between the parties and,
therefore, the impugned judgment of the Writ Court
cannot be termed as a judgment within the meaning of the
expression used in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this
Court. That apart, Mr. Lone would submit that the
Tribunal, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, could not
have condoned the delay of more than 18 years, more
particularly when the appellant was all along aware that
the subject land was under occupation of respondent No.2
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
who had raised his residential house on the subject land.
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 5 of 21
Another argument was raised by Mr. Lone that the
settlement operations in Village Balsoo Kulgam were
completed in the year 1996-97 and all mutations under
the Act of 1976 including those challenged by the
appellant came to be accepted and incorporated in the
record of rights those were prepared pursuant to the
settlement operations. The appellant, who was none other
than the Lumberdar of the Village, never objected to the
entries those were made in the revised record of rights
prepared after settlement operations and, therefore,
cannot be permitted to assail the entries in the revenue
records other than by filing a civil suit before the civil court
of competent jurisdiction.
7) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record, we are of the considered
opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the Writ
Court is liable to be set aside on the solitary ground that
the Writ Court has nowhere indicated in the impugned
judgment as to how the matter has not received an
appropriate consideration of the Tribunal. There is
reference in paragraph (9) of the impugned judgment that
during adjudication of the appeals (should have been
revision), the Tribunal has not manifestly considered the
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
factual matter appropriately, be it regarding attestation of
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 6 of 21
mutation Nos.247 and 250 as also in respect of mutation
Nos.244 and 246. We have minutely gone into the
impugned judgment in its entirety but could not find
anything, which, in the view of the Writ Court, was not
considered by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is
elaborate and has taken note of all aspects of the dispute
elaborately.
8) While holding so, we could have straightway accepted
the appeal and set aside the order of the Writ Court.
However, having regard to the fact that the parties are
litigating since the year 2006, remanding the matter to
Writ Court for re-consideration would un-necessarily
prolong the wait of the parties to the conclusion of their
litigation and resolution of their dispute. We have, thus,
ventured to consider the matter on merits to put a quietus
on the dispute between the parties.
9) Admittedly, the subject land belongs to the appellant.
It is the appellant who is recorded as owner in self-
cultivation in Kharif, 1971, which is a crucial date for
determining the rights of the parties under the Act of
1976. True it is that there is one mutation i.e. mutation
No.197 dated 18th June, 1983. This is in reference to land
of the appellant measuring 01 kanal and 05 marlas. A
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
perusal of mutation No.197 appended with writ petition as
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 7 of 21
Annexure-G would indicate that by virtue of this mutation,
Khasra Girdawari entry of 1971, which showed the
appellant in self-cultivation, was corrected to indicate
respondent No.2 as tiller. The appellant is not amongst the
persons who were present at the time of attestation of this
mutation nor his name appears in the list of signatories.
Obviously mutation No.197 dated 18.06.1983 has been
attested by Tehsildar, Kulgam, at the back of the
appellant. This mutation was neither relied upon nor
produced by respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. This
mutation was, for the first time, introduced in the
amended writ petition filed before the Writ Court.
10) Be that as it may, it is not understandable as to why
the follow up action in terms of attestation of mutation
under Section 4 of the Act of 1976 in favour of respondent
No.2 was not immediately taken. As a matter of fact,
mutation under Section 4 of the Act of 1976 in respect of
land measuring 01 kanal and 05 marlas falling under
Survey No.112 was never attested. We are in agreement
with Mr. Lone that mutation No.244, purportedly attested
under Section 4 of the Act of 1976, attested under Section
4 of the Act of 1976, does not pertain to any land under
Survey No.112. It is, thus, evident that Tehsildar, Kulgam,
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
without attesting any mutation under Section 4,
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 8 of 21
straightway attested mutation No.246 dated 13th
February, 1988, under Section 8 of the Act of 1976
conferring ownership rights in respect of land measuring
01 kanal 05 marlas upon respondent No.2. This obviously
is a serious lapse on the part of the revenue officer and
speaks volumes about the manner in which the mutations
were attested.
11) Regarding mutation No.247 dated 7th March, 1988,
attested under Section 4 of the Act of 1976 with respect to
land measuring 02 kanals falling under Survey No.112,
suffice it to say that the said mutation has been attested
without having resort to correction of Khasra Girdawari
entry of 1971 in terms of Rule 4 of the J&K Agrarian
Reforms Rules, 1977 [“the Rules of 1977”]. From perusal
of mutation No.247, it clearly transpires that the appellant
has been shown in self-cultivation as per Khasra
Girdawari entry of 1971. It is, however, not forthcoming as
to how the entry of self-cultivation has been changed to
reflect the name of respondent No.2 as tiller without there
being any mutation of ‘Sehti Indraj’. We are saying so
because mutation No.247 does not refer to any earlier
mutation of ‘Sehti Indraj’ attested by competent revenue
officer after following the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules
of 1977. Undoubtedly, mutation No.250 dated 16th March,
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 9 of 21
1988, under Section 8 of the Act of 1976 is attested on the
basis of mutation No.247.
12) We are in complete agreement with the Tribunal that
the mutating officer has thrown the provisions of the Act
of 1976 and the Rules framed thereunder to wind and
attested the mutations which are, on the face of it,
contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1976 and the Rules
framed thereunder. It is true and we agree with Mr. Lone
that mutation No.244 dated 01.01.1988 does not pertain
to the piece of land measuring 01 kanal and 05 marlas
under Survey No.112. We are even ready to accept the
contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that
correction of Khasra Girdawari entry of Kharif 1971 in
respect of land measuring 01 kanal 05 marlas stood made
vide mutation No.197 dated 18.06.1983, yet we are at loss
to understand as to how the mutating officer could
straightway attest mutation under Section 8 of the Act of
1976, which ought to have, necessarily, followed a mutation
attested under Section 4 of the Act of 1976. As has been
held above that there was no mutation under Section 4 of
the Act of 1976 attested in respect of land measuring 01
kanal and 05 marlas. This is beside the point that
mutation No.197 was attested in violation of the principles
of natural justice and without following the procedure laid
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 10 of 21
down under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1977. We are aware that
mutation No.197 has not been challenged by the appellant
before any forum. As a matter of fact, mutation No.197
came to light for the first time when amended writ petition
was filed by respondent No.2 before the Writ Court. We,
therefore, conclude that the manner in which the
mutations have been attested by the revenue officer qua
the subject land, is contrary to the provisions of the Act of
1976 and the Rules framed thereunder. All the mutations
were attested at the back of the landlord (the appellant)
and, therefore, are nullity in the eye of law.
13) Regarding delay, we would like to point out that since
the mutations challenged by the appellant before the
Appellate Forum under the Act of 1976 were all exparte
and attested at the back of the appellant, as such, the
appellant had no occasion to have the knowledge of such
mutation. It is true that on a portion of subject land the
respondent No.2 has made certain constructions including
the construction of his residential house and that was
enough to impute knowledge to the appellant. The
appellant has, however, explained that the construction
was raised by respondent No.2 on the land measuring 05
marlas which had been sold by him to the said respondent.
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 11 of 21
At this juncture we would like to refer to the provisions of
Rule 52 of the Rules of 1977, which reads thus:
“52. Case where appeal fails on ground of
limitation.– Where the appeal is dismissed on the
ground of limitation, the appellate authority shall, if
he be of the opinion that the order appealed from is
one which should be revised, submit the case through
proper channel to the revisional authority with a
report why the order appealed from needs being
revised and what the revised order should be. On
receipt of this report, the revisional authority shall act
as if an application for revision under the Act had been
made to him.
14) From a reading of Rule 52, it clearly transpires that
even if the appeal under the Act of 1976 is dismissed on
the ground of limitation and the appellate authority is of
the opinion that that the order appealed from is one which
should be revised, it shall submit the case through proper
channel to the revisional authority with a report as to why
the order appealed from is required to be revised. It is true
that in the instant case the appellate authority has not
held such opinion. However, from reading of Rule 52, it
can be safely inferred that the revisional authority hearing
a revision petition against the order of dismissal of appeal
on the ground of limitation passed by the appellate
authority has wider jurisdiction and may ignore the delay
if it is of the opinion that the order appealed from before
the appellate authority is required to be revised. In short,
the discretion of the revisional authority to ignore the delay
MIR ARIF MANZOOR would depend upon the merits of the appeal dismissed by
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 12 of 21
the appellate authority on the ground of limitation. TheTribunal has, thus, rightly exercised its revisional power
and has accepted the explanation tendered by the
appellant for filing of belated appeals before the appellate
authority. The Writ Court has also not found fault with
exercise of such power by the Tribunal but has remanded
the case to the Tribunal for re-consideration on the ground
that some aspects have remained unconsidered by the
Tribunal.
15) For all these reasons, we do not find any fault with
the order of the Tribunal which has been set aside by the
Writ Court. In the given facts and circumstances and also
the reasons given hereinabove, there was hardly any need
to remand the matter for re-consideration to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has correctly appreciated the controversy
and set aside the mutations, which on the face of it, were
contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1976 and the Rules
framed thereunder. However, before we conclude, we deem
it appropriate to deal with a specious argument raised by
Mr. Lone that after the preparation of revised Record of
Rights pursuant to the settlement operations started vide
SRO 297 dated 9th October, 1991, and completed in
respect of Village Balsoo in the year 1996-97, all mutations
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
including the impugned mutations under the Act of 1976
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 13 of 21
came to be recorded in the revised Record of Rights and,
therefore, such entries made in the Record of Rights on the
basis of impugned mutations cannot be changed or altered
except under due process of law prescribed by Section 32
of the Land Revenue Act i.e. by way of a suit for declaration
filed by the party aggrieved before the civil court. Mr. Lone
also places reliance on Section 121 of the Land Revenue
Act to contend that impugned mutations which led to the
making of entries in the Record of Rights could have been
objected to by the appellant during the course of
preparation of Record of Rights or revision of Record of
Rights and the Collector could have disposed of such
dispute summarily subject to such orders that may be
passed in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner.
16) We have given thoughtful consideration to the
argument vehemently raised by Mr. Lone and we find no
substance therein. With a view to better appreciate the
issue raised by Mr. Lone, we need to understand the
nature of ‘Record of Rights’ (Jamabandi). Section 21 of the
Land Revenue Act deals with Record of Rights and
documents included therein. For ready reference, Section
21 of the Land Revenue Act is set out below:
“21. Record of rights and documents Included
therein. – (1) Save as otherwise provided by this
Chapter, there shall he a record-of-rights for
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
each estate.
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 14 of 21
(2) The record-of-rights for an estate shall include
the following documents, namely: —
(a) statements showing, so far as may be
practicable--
(i) the persons who are land-holders,
tenants or assignees of land revenue in the
estate, or who are entitled to receive any of
the rents, profits or produce of the estate
or to occupy land therein;
(ii) the nature and extent of the interests of
those persons; and the conditions and
liabilities attaching thereto; and
(iii) the rent, land revenue, rates, cesses or
other payments due from and to each of
those persons and to the State;
(b) a statement of customs respecting rights
and liabilities in the estate;
(c) a map of the estate;
(d) such other documents as the Financial
Commissioner with the previous sanction
of the Government may prescribe.
EXPLANATION.-Record-of-rights mentioned
above includes record-of-rights and the map
prepared and transferred under the provisions of
the Jammu and Kashmir Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1962.
17) From plain reading of Section 21 (supra), it is evident
that the Record of Rights for an estate shall include the
statements showing the persons who are land holders,
tenants or assignees of land revenue in the estate; or who
are entitled to receive any of the rents, profits or produce
of the estate or to occupy land therein; the nature and
extent of interest of those persons; and the conditions and
liabilities attaching thereto; and the rent, land revenue,
rates cesses and other payments due from and to each of
those persons and to the State. It also includes statement
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 15 of 21
of customs respecting rights and liabilities in the estate; a
map of the estate and such other documents as the
Financial Commissioner with the previous sanction of the
Government may prescribe.
18) Making of special revision of record of rights is
referable to Section 22, which confers upon the
Government power to direct by way of a notification that
record of rights be made or the record of rights be revised,
as the case may be. In short, a record of rights prepared
at a settlement or its revision, of an estate which gives line
of dissent of land-holders, a village map and defines right,
interest and liabilities of landholders, tenants and
assignees of land revenue, is called record of rights. It, of
course, comprises of the documents mentioned in Section
21(2) of the Land Revenue Act. The requisite
documents/papers, from which the record of rights are
prepared/revised, consist of:
(I) the last Jamabandi;
(II) mutations attested since last Jamabandi was
framed; and
(III) the Khasra Girdawari;
19) The changes of rights and cultivation concerning
landholders, tenants, mortgagees and lease-holders and
change of assignees of the land revenue are given effect to
in the record of rights strictly in accordance with the
orders passed on Mutation Register. This is so clearly
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 16 of 21
provided in Rule 5 of the Standing Order 23-B issued by
the Revenue Minister in the exercise of powers vested in
him under the J&K Land Revenue Act.
20) It is true that under Section 32 of the Land Revenue
Act, a person aggrieved by an entry in the record of rights
is entitled to institute a suit before the Collector (Deputy
Commissioner) for correction of record and for possession
of the right claimed, if he is not in possession thereof etc.
However, in the instant case, the entry made in the record
of rights is strictly as per the mutations attested by
competent mutating officer under the J&K Agrarian
Reforms Act and, therefore, the entry in the revised record
of rights prepared pursuant to the settlement operations
initiated vide SRO 297 dated 9th October, 1991, cannot be
said to be an incorrect entry made in the record of rights
which is required to be corrected by way of filing a suit for
declaratory decree by the aggrieved person before the
Collector (Deputy Commissioner). The basis of the entry in
the record of rights are the mutations attested by the
competent revenue officer and, therefore, it cannot be said
that the entries qua the subject land made in the revised
record of rights prepared pursuant to the settlement
operations aforesaid are incorrect entries. However, it
cannot be said that once an entry in the record of rights
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 17 of 21
on the basis of a mutation is made, the mutation becomes
immune to challenge and the aggrieved party has no
remedy except to file a suit for declaration under Section
32 of the Land Revenue Act. The mutations attested under
Section 4 and 8 of the Act of 1976 are appealable under
Section 21(1) of the Act of 1976 and the person aggrieved
by a final order of Collector or a revenue officer of a class
lower than that of a Collector is entitled to prefer an appeal
to the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms having jurisdiction
in the area to which the appeal relates. The entry made in
the revised record of rights pursuant to the settlement
operations conducted under the orders of the Government
cannot take away this statutory remedy of appeal
conferred upon the aggrieved person.
21) Needless to say that if the mutations with respect to
which the entries already stand made in the record of
rights are set aside by the appellate or the revisional forum
under the Agrarian Reforms Act or under the Land
Revenue Act, as the case may be, a necessary consequence
thereof would be updation of the record of rights and the
orders of the appellate authority/revisional authority, as
the case may be, shall be reflected by revising the record
of rights on the commencement of next settlement
operation. Neither Section 32 nor Section 121 of the Land
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 18 of 21
Revenue Act can come in the way of the person aggrieved
of a mutation to avail of the remedies provided under the
statute. We, therefore, hold that the appeals before the
appellate authority and the revision before the Tribunal by
the appellant were maintainable, notwithstanding the fact
that on the basis of the impugned mutations, the requisite
entries stood made in the revised record of rights.
22) Regarding the objection taken by Mr. Lone with
regard to maintainability of the appeal under Clause 12 of
the Letters Patent, suffice it to say that the impugned
judgment passed by the Writ Court is not an order of
remand simplicitor for re-consideration by the Tribunal
but it also sets aside the judgment of the Tribunal whereby
the Tribunal has accepted the revision petition of the
appellant and set aside the mutations attested by
Tehsildar, Kulgam, against the appellant. Otherwise, also
in the given facts and circumstances, the remand of the
case was not called for, more particularly when the Writ
Court had not spelled out the factual aspects which had
escaped the attention of the Tribunal and deserved
reconsideration.
23) During the course of hearing the matter and while
going through the entire record, we find that there are two
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
vital admissions made by the parties. The appellant has
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 19 of 21
categorically stated before the appellate authority as well
as before us that he had sold only 05 marlas of land to
respondent No.2. There is also an admission made by
respondent No.2 that the land under his occupation since
1971 is actually purchased by him from the appellant.
24) In view of the aforesaid two admissions, one thing is
clearly established that there was never ever a relationship
of landlord and tenant between the parties attracting the
provisions of Section 4 and 8 of the Act of 1976. Probably
with a view to giving legal colour to the illegal transaction
between the parties, the manipulations, in connivance
with revenue officers, were made. In the absence of any
agreement to sell or sale deed on record, it is difficult for
us to say as to how much land was actually transferred by
the appellant to respondent No.2. It is, however, trite law
that after the commencement of the Act of 1976, nobody
was entitled to hold the agricultural land for a purpose
other than personal cultivation nor was he entitled to
transfer the same to some other person for consideration
or otherwise. Obviously, if there has been transfer of land
from appellant to respondent No.2 or that the appellant
has ceased to be in cultivating possession of the subject
land owned by him, there is, prima facie, violation of the
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
provisions of the Act of 1976 and the Rules framed
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 20 of 21
thereunder. This is one issue which needs to be gone into
by the revenue authorities.
25) For the foregoing reasons, we find merit in this
appeal and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The
impugned order and judgment passed by the Writ Court is
set aside and the order of the Tribunal is upheld. The
Tehsildar, Kulgam, is directed to conduct an enquiry to
find out as to how the subject land or a portion thereof has
come to be transferred in favour of respondent No.2. He
shall also hold a detailed enquiry to find out as to whether
there has been violation of the provisions of the Agrarian
Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder entailing an
action for escheatment of the land to the State. The action
to be initiated under the provisions of the Agrarian
Reforms Act would depend upon the result of such
enquiry.
(MOHD. YOUSUF WANI) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Srinagar,
09.05.2025
"Bhat Altaf-Secy"
Whether the JUDGMENT is reportable: Yes/No
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.05.25 LPA No.236/2023 Page 21 of 21
[ad_1]
Source link