Sukhdev Singh vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 19 February, 2024

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Sukhdev Singh vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 19 February, 2024

01. In the instant petition, the petitioners have thrown challenge to order dated 03.02.2024 (for short "the impugned order") passed by the respondent 2 herein upon a representation of the petitioners, wherein correction of land records had been sought contending therein by the petitioners that they purchased the land measuring 48 kanals 07 marlas from one Gian Singh falling under 2 WP(C) No. 314/2024 CM No. 724/2024 Survey Nos. 172, 315, 180, 320, 329, 331 & 333 situated in Village Pragpura, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu and that the said land despite having been purchased by the petitioners on 07.03.2002 from the said Gian Singh, who was in personal cultivation of the said land even recorded in the records maintained by the respondents, same is shown in the records to be not under their ownership and possession.

02. It is stated that the respondent 2 upon considering the representation of the petitioners in terms of the impugned order set aside Mutation No. 42 dated 03.10.2005 having been attested in favour of the petitioners herein qua the land in question pursuant to the transaction of sale of the said land.

03. It is stated that the setting aside of mutation has been carried out on the basis of a report obtained from the Tehsildar Pargwal and other revenue records furnished to the respondent 2 vide No.TP/OQ/23-24/852 dated 22.01.2024, wherein it is alleged to have come to fore that the land measuring 48 kanals 07 marlas had been purchased by the petitioners herein on 08.03.2002 on the basis of a Fard having been issued by the Tehsildar concerned on 11.02.2002 based on the Jamabandi of the year 1966-67 instead of the latest Jamabandi of the year 1995-96 pertaining to the land in question and that out of the total land measuring 48 kanals 07 3 WP(C) No. 314/2024 CM No. 724/2024 marlas, land to the extent of 34 kanals 06 marlas covered under Survey No. 172, 180, 315, 320, 329, 331 & 333 has been escheated to the State vide Mutation No. 24 under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and that the petitioners herein have had purchased the said State land measuring 34 kanals 06 marlas, which had been escheated to the State and also that the revenue officials had issued the Fard in respect of the said land, contrary to the provisions of the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996.

04. The petitioners have questioned the impugned order inter- alia on the grounds that the same is against law and facts and has been passed without hearing the petitioners and that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent 2 without any competence and that the impugned order reversing the mutation attested in favour of the petitioners is in violation of Section 13 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996, and that the impugned order is perverse and illegal.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

05. The writ jurisdiction enshrined in Article 226 of the Constitution though confers extraordinary jurisdiction on the High Courts to issue high prerogative writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other parties, yet the power is 4 WP(C) No. 314/2024 CM No. 724/2024 discretionary in nature and has to be exercised along recognized lines subject to self-imposed limitations, one amongst such limitations being availability of an alternate remedy available to an aggrieved party.

06. Under the provisions of the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996, Section 11 provides for appeals and reads as under:-

"Section 11: Appeals. -- Save as otherwise provided by this Act, an appeal shall lie from an original or appellate order of a Revenue officer as follows, namely: --

(a) to the Collector when the order is made by an Assistant Collector of either class;

(b) to the Divisional Commissioner when the order is made by a Collector;

(c) to the Financial Commissioner when the order is made by a Divisional Commissioner:

Provided that --

(1) where an original order is confirmed on first appeal, no further appeal shall lie except on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1977;

(2) where any such order is modified or reversed on appeal by the Collector, the order made by the Divisional Commissioner on further appeal, if any, to him shall be final; (3) the Government may especially empower an Assistant Collector of the first class to hear appeals against the orders of an Assistant Collector of the second Class."

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would reveal that the remedy of appeal is provided from the original or appellate order of a revenue officer and in the instant case such appeal is available 5 WP(C) No. 314/2024 CM No. 724/2024 before the Divisional Commissioner, as the impugned order has been passed by the respondent 2 in the capacity as a Collector.

07. Thus, in presence of aforesaid statutory remedy available to the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction and allow the machinery created by the provisions of the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996 to be bye-passed. Resultantly, the petition on this count is held to be not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE JAMMU 19.02.2024 Muneesh Whether the order is speaking : Yes / No Whether the order is reportable : Yes / No

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jammu & Kashmir High Court