Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Saleema Begum vs State Of J&K; And Others on 30 December, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
OWP No. 2135/2017
MP No. 01/2017
Date of decision: 30.12.2017
Saleema Begum vs. State of J&K and others
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Janak Raj Kotwal, Judge
Appearance:
For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajaz Ahmad Chesti, Adv.
For the respondent(s):
(i) Whether to be reported in
Press, Journal/Media: Yes/No
(ii) Whether to be reported in
Journal/Digest: Yes/No
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length and record on the file perused.
2. Record on the file would show that an order dated 03.07.1989 passed by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Kashmir was challenged in revision petition No. 2562 by one Sultan Najar before the J&K Special Tribunal at Srinagar. Learned Speical Tribunal dismissed the revision petition its by order dated 22.02.1993. The order passed by the learned Tribunal would show that therein petitioner did not appear before the learned Tribunal on series of successive dates fixed therein and ultimately learned Tribunal dismissed the revision petition observing that the order impugned dated 03.07.1989 'appears to be based on facts and no case whatsoever is made out' so no interference was called for.
3. In this writ petition, petitioner, Saleema Begum, who claims to be the daughter of Sultan Najar, challenges the order dated 22.02.1993 (supra) mainly on the ground therein petitioner, Sultan Najar, had died in the year 1990 so the order passed against a dead person cannot sustain. Learned counsel for the petitioner OWP No. 2135/2017 Page 1 of 2 argued vehemently that the order passed by the learned Special Tribunal is illegal and nullity as the same was passed against a dead person.
4. The plea taken on behalf of the petitioner is not legally sustainable for the reason that no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Special Tribunal in looking into the legality of the order impugned before it. Even if it is presumed for the sake of the argument that the revision petitioner therein had died in the year, 1990, in that case also, as his legal representative had not come forward to pursue the revision petition, the revision had automatically abated and was liable to be dismissed on that score also. The impugned order dated 22.02.1993, therefore, cannot be said to have been passed against the dead person as by virtue of this order the revision petition was dismissed, which otherwise was the natural consequence of no representation of behalf of the petitioner therein, may be due to his death. No case for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court more than two decades of passing of the impugned order in such circumstances is made out.
4 Viewed thus, this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.
(Janak Raj Kotwal) Judge Srinagar:
30.12.2017 Rakesh OWP No. 2135/2017 Page 2 of 2