Mohammad Ramzan Ganai vs Financial Commissioner State And Ors on 8 March, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Mohammad Ramzan Ganai vs Financial Commissioner State And Ors on 8 March, 2018

Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur

             HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                                AT SRINAGAR


OWP No.356/2018
MP No.01/2018 and Caveat No.435/2018
                                                    Date of Order: 08.03.2018

                     Mohammad Ramzan Ganai
                                 Vs.
                     Financial Commissioner State & Ors
Coram:
             Hon'ble Mr Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Judge
Appearance:
For the petitioner(s): Mr. N.A.Kuchai, Advocate
For the caveator(s): Mr. Sheikh Hilal, Advocate

i)    Whether approved for reporting in                   Yes/No
      Law journals etc:
ii)   Whether approved for publication
      in press:                                           Yes/No


1)    Petitioner challenges order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Financial
Commissioner (Revenue) J&K, Srinagar in revision petition against order
dated 13.08.1996 passed on mutation no.5234 of estate karewah Damadhar
Tehsil Budgam, whereby, the said mutation has been directed to be set
aside and the entries prior to the attestation of the mutation ordered to be
restored. The basis for setting aside the mutation dated 13.08.1996 with
the Financial Commissioner was primarily that the same has been attested




OWP No.356 of 2018                                             Page 1 of 3
 in contravention to Section 31 of Agrarian Reforms Act which prohibited
alienation of land by any means including the mode of gift.
2)    Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that while he was not
aggrieved of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue to
the extent it holds that the mutation order was bad and in contravention of
Section 31 of Agrarian Reforms Act, he urged that he is aggrieved only
part of the order which directed restoration of the entries prior to the
attestation of the mutation.
3)    It was sought to be urged that the petitioner was in fact the owner of
the land which was subject matter of the gift by the so called tenants,
which gift could not have been legally made on two grounds. First, that the
land in question was banjar land, in regard to which, no tenancy rights
could have been vested and, secondly, if the land is banjar, then in terms of
Section 2 (12) explanation (iv) of Agrarian Reforms Act, it has to be
deemed to be in personal cultivation of the owner.
4)    Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5)    Once the counsel for the petitioner agrees that the mutation dated
13.08.1996

bearing no.5234 was rightly ordered to be set aside by the Financial Commissioner Revenue, then all the necessary consequences would follow and by necessary implication the entries as entered prior to the attestation of the mutation, which was subject matter before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, would got restored. Law does not envisage a vacuum in a case where the impugned mutation is set aside.

6) This Court cannot go into question as to whether the tenancy could be created in regard to land which is banjar and whether it could legally have OWP No.356 of 2018 Page 2 of 3 been reflected in the revenue record or not, as it was not the subject matter before the authorities below.

7) Be that as it may, the order impugned cannot be interfered with. Petition is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith all connected MPs.

8)    Caveat discharged.

                                                     (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
                                                                    Judge
Srinagar
08.03.2018
Sarveeda




OWP No.356 of 2018                                           Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench