Som Raj & Ors vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 30 August, 2025

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Som Raj & Ors vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 30 August, 2025

1. The facts emanating from pleadings of the parties reveal that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were recorded as tenants of the agricultural land under khasra Nos. 285, 286, 302, 432/303, 304, 306, 307, 434/310 & 435/310 situated at village Ramnagar, tehsil and district Kathua whereas, the predecessor-in-interest of private respondents were recorded as landlords in respect of the aforesaid land. Since the landlords were not personally cultivating the aforesaid land at the time when Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') came into force as such, mutation No. 245 under Section 4 of the Act came to be attested in respect of the land in question and it got vested in the State. An application under Section 7 of the Act was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of private respondents in their capacity as landlords seeking resumption of the land as permissible under Section 7 of the Act.

2. It seems that in the first instance, the Naib Tehsildar, Kathua dismissed the claim of the private respondents, which order came to be assailed by the predecessor-in-

3 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2546 WP(C) No. 3079/2023 & CCP(S) No. 258/2025 interest of the private respondents and the matter came up for consideration again before the Tehsildar, Kathua who, after considering the matter afresh, attested mutation No. 360 of village Ramnagar on 04.09.2004 under Section 7 of the Act in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents holding them entitled to resumption of the land as per their shares and as per the share of rent that was being received by them from the tenants. It was also ordered that the concerned Naib Tehsildar along with his field staff shall visit the spot in presence of both the parties and prepare the 'tatima' whereafter resumption of the land shall be made keeping in view the availability of residence, choice of serviceability and sources of irrigation which had to be determined by the Naib Tehsildar, Kathua.

3. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners by way of an appeal before the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Kathua (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the appellate authority') who, vide order dated 29.10.2005, dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders passed on mutation Nos. 359 and 360 attested under Section 7 of the Act.

4. A revision petition came to be filed by the predecessor-in-

interest of the petitioners against the order of the appellate 4 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2546 WP(C) No. 3079/2023 & CCP(S) No. 258/2025 authority before Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Tribunal'). The said revision petition also came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2006. The matter did not stop here. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing a writ petition bearing OWP No. 288/2006 against the order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition also met the same fate as the same was dismissed by this Court in terms of a detailed order dated 14.11.2006. Yet again the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners challenged the order of the writ court by filing Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA (OW) No. 4/2007 and 05/2007. Both these appeals came to be dismissed by the Division bench of this Court on 09.05.2007.

5. The matter did not rest here. The petitioners filed a suit before the District Collector, Kathua seeking a declaration that rate of rent payable by the plaintiffs in respect of the land in question was 1/4th according to the rates of rent chargeable in the locality and neighbourhood. The said suit came to be dismissed by the District Collector, Kathua in terms of order dated 17.03.2009. While dismissing the suit, cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed upon the plaintiffs therein.

5 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2546 WP(C) No. 3079/2023 & CCP(S) No. 258/2025

6. In the meantime, when the order of the appellate authority had attained finality and it was not being implemented on spot, it seems that the private respondents made an application before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu with a prayer that the Tehsildar concerned should be directed to handover possession of the land in question to the private respondents in terms of resumption order passed on mutation No. 360 dated 04.09.2004. Vide communication No. 502/Misc/Kathua/22/1221 dated 18.10.2022, the application filed by the private respondents was forwarded to Deputy Commissioner, Kathua for taking appropriate action.

7. The Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, vide his communication No. DCK/SQ/2022-23/7701-02 dated 20.10.2022, directed Tehsildar, Kathua to furnish report in the matter and upon receiving the report dated 13.04.2023, Deputy Commissioner, Kathua vide his communication dated 07.07.2023 asked the Tehsildar, Kathua to take necessary action in the matter. It seems that the Tehsildar, Kathua has issued notices dated 09.11.2023, 14.11.2023 and 22.11.2023 to the parties to remain present on spot on 24.11.2023 at 11.00 AM so that proceedings in the matter can be carried out.

6 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2546 WP(C) No. 3079/2023 & CCP(S) No. 258/2025

8. As per the stand of the official respondents as well as the private respondents, the possession of the land has been handed over to the respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 on 24.11.2023 in terms of mutation No. 360 of village Ramnagar by the Naib Tehsildar, concerned.

9. The petitioners have challenged the communication dated 18.10.2022 issued by Divisional Commissioner, Jammu whereby Deputy Commissioner, Kathua was asked to implement the order of the appellate authority. Challenge has also been thrown to notice dated 22.11.2023 issued by the Tehsildar, Kathua whereby parties were asked to remain present on spot on 24.11.2023. The petitioners have further laid challenge to the proceedings conducted pursuant to the aforesaid notice including the proceedings relating to fixing of pillars in the land.

10. According to the writ petitioners, the impugned action of the official respondents is bad in law as mandate of Section 7 of the Act and Rule 21 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules') has not been followed in the present case.

11. It has been contended that Divisional Commissioner, Jammu had no jurisdiction to issue direction upon subordinate revenue officer in terms of impugned communication dated 18.10.2022. It has been submitted 7 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2546 WP(C) No. 3079/2023 & CCP(S) No. 258/2025 that grave injustice has been caused by the official respondents by fixing cemented polls in the land with an attempt to dispossess them from the land, which is under their tenancy.

12. It has been contended that no enquiry as contemplated under Section 7 (2) (d), (2) (f), (4) and 6 of the Act has been conducted by the Tehsildar before delivering possession and determining the eligibility of private respondents. It has been further contended that the official respondents could not have implemented the order of mutation when the crops were standing on the land in question. It has also been contended that the procedure prescribed under Rule 21 of the Rules has not been followed in the present case and no opportunity was given to the petitioners before proceeding to implement the order of mutation attested in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. The first contention of the petitioners that Divisional Commissioner, Jammu had no authority and jurisdiction to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua to take appropriate action in respect of the application of respondent No. 7, is absolutely without any substance. The Divisional Commissioner, Jammu while forwarding the application of 8 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2546 WP(C) No. 3079/2023 & CCP(S) No. 258/2025 respondent No. 7 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua has not acted as an authority under the Act but it has acted as a superior administrative officer. In that capacity, the Divisional Commissioner received a representation from respondent No. 7 complaining that order of mutation that had attained finality was not being implemented on spot. The Divisional Commissioner, Jammu without passing any order simply forwarded the application of respondent No. 7 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua for getting the matter enquired and taking appropriate action. No order in terms of the Act has been passed by the Divisional Commissioner, as such, the issue relating to his jurisdiction does not arise at all.

15. That takes us to the contention of the petitioners with regard to non-adherence to the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act and Rule 21 of the Rules. It seems that the petitioners by raking up these contentions are trying to initiate a fresh round of litigation in respect of the issues which have already been settled right from the Tehsildar upto the Division Bench of this Court. The action of the Tehsildar in attesting the mutation of resumption under Section 7 of the Act vide mutation No. 360 dated 04.09.2004 has withstood the scrutiny of not only the appellate 9 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2546 WP(C) No. 3079/2023 & CCP(S) No. 258/2025 authority but even of the higher fora like the Tribunal, the writ court and the LPA bench.

16. The issue with regard to eligibility of the landlords to resume the land in question as also the issues with regard to share of the land which they are entitled to resume have been deliberated upon and decided in the first round of litigation. The writ petitioners cannot, through the medium of the present proceedings, be allowed to re-agitate and re-open these settled issues.

17. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules have not been adhered to by the Tehsildar by implementing the order passed on mutation under Section 7 of the Act is concerned, the same is also misconceived because Rule 21 of the Rules relates to a stage when the issue with regard to resumption in terms of Section 7 of the Act is to be determined. The said provision is not attracted at the stage of implementation of the order of resumption. It is Rule 51 of the Rules, which is to be followed by the executing authority at the time of implementation of the order passed by the appellate authority. The said Rule reads as under:

51. Implementation of appellate order. --

(1) Certified copy of the order in appeal shall be sent in duplicate to the officer from whose order the appeal was preferred.

10 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2546 WP(C) No. 3079/2023 & CCP(S) No. 258/2025 (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), the appellate order shall be given effect to by--

(i) recording on both foils of the mutation (on which was passed the order appealed from) the operative part of such appellate order ;

(ii) enclosing with the parat-sarkar (State foil) of the mutation the certified copy of the appellate order, so as to make such certified copy an integral part of the annual record ; and

(iii) effecting eviction from and delivery of possession of land, if necessary.

(3) Where the order appealed from has already been given effect to in the annual record, effect to the order in appeal shall be given on a fresh mutationand the certified copy of the appellate order shall remain attached to the parat-sarkar of such mutation so as to form part of the annual record. (4) The Officer from whose order the appeal was preferred shall, after implementing the appellate order, return the duplicate of such order to the appellate authority with a report of compliance indicating in what manner the compliance has been made. Along with this report shall be enclosed an attested copy of the mutation mentioned in sub- rule (2) or of the fresh mutation mentioned in sub-rule (3), as the case may be."

18. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that once an order of mutation under the Act is upheld /modified by the appellate authority, it has to be given effect by recording on both foils of the mutation, the operative part of the said order whereafter certified copy of the order has to be enclosed with the part sarkar so as to make it integral part of annual record. The executing court has to effect eviction and delivery of possession in terms of the order of 11 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2546 WP(C) No. 3079/2023 & CCP(S) No. 258/2025 the appellate authority. This is what has been done by the Tehsildar through the Naib Tehsildar concerned in the present case.

19. At the stage of execution, the issues already settled and finalized cannot be re-agitated. The only thing the executing authority has to do is to follow the mandate of Rule 51 of the Rules quoted above. The executing authority has, in the instant case, issued the impugned notices to the petitioners before implementing the order and effecting delivery of possession of the land in question to the private respondents. No fault can, therefore, be found in the impugned action of the official respondents.

20. Another contention raised by the petitioners is with regard to the quantum of land which is eligible to be resumed by the private respondents. This aspect of the matter has acquired finality and the attempt of the writ petitioners to reopen this aspect by filing a suit before the Collector has miserably failed and in fact cost of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed upon them. Though it appears that the said order of the Collector is subject matter of challenge before the higher forum yet the order of the Collector has not been stayed and the same is still in force.

21. So far as the ratio laid down in judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'S. Kuldeep Singh and anr Vs. S. 12 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2546 WP(C) No. 3079/2023 & CCP(S) No. 258/2025 Prithpal Singh', AIR 2022 (SC) 3967 and judgment of this Court in the case of 'Chaman Lal and ors Vs. Rakesh Nanda and ors', 2019 (Law Suit) (J&K) 102' is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. These judgments do not deal with the procedure relating to execution of mutation order attested under Section 7 of the Act. In the present case, the issue relating to the legality of the procedure conducted for attestation of mutation of resumption under Section 7 of the Act has already been dealt with by various fora right from the level of Tehsildar upto the level of Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the same cannot be reopened. Thus, the aforesaid judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot come to his aid at this stage.

22. For what has been discussed hereinabove, there is absolutely no merit in the contentions raised by the writ petitioners. As already stated, it is an attempt on their part to initiate a fresh round of litigation in respect of issues which have already been determined in the first round of litigation. It appears to be a case of abuse of process of court on the part of the writ petitioners, who by their litigious conduct, have succeeded in avoiding implementation of the order passed by the appellate authority for more than two decades thereby making a 13 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2546 WP(C) No. 3079/2023 & CCP(S) No. 258/2025 mockery of the process of law. Thus, it is a fit case where costs should be imposed upon the writ petitioners for the manner in which they have tried to reopen the issues which have already acquired finality.

23. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- which, upon recovery, shall be deposited in the Advocates' Welfare Fund. The cost shall be deposited by the writ petitioners within a period of one month failing which the Registrar Judicial shall list this matter for initiating proceedings against the writ petitioners for recovery of the costs.

CCP(S) No. 258/2025

24. Since the main writ petition has been disposed of by virtue of a separate order passed today, as such the interim order giving rise to the present contempt proceedings has merged with the final judgment. The contempt proceedings, therefore, do not survive. As such, the same are closed.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 30.08.2025 Naresh/Secy Whether order is speaking: Yes Whether order is reportable: Yes ...

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jammu & Kashmir High Court