Ramesh Kumar vs Additional Deputy Commissioner on 11 November, 2024

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Ramesh Kumar vs Additional Deputy Commissioner on 11 November, 2024

01. Through the medium of this common order the afore titled three writ petitions, challenging three orders dated 15.03.2023 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) 2 WP(C ) No.1051/2023; 1052/2023 & 1068/2023 Udhampur whereby appeals against Mutation Nos.225, 258, 318, 335, 285 & 286 of Village Kallar Himti, Tehsil & District, Udhampur have been dismissed, are proposed to be disposed of.

02. The petitioner claims that his father was owner-in-possession of land measuring 05 kanals in Khasra No.334/69; 03 kanals 04 marlas in Khasra No.69/3; 12 kanals 09 marlas in Khasra No.69/4; 06 kanals 02 marlas in Khasra No.335/71; 2 kanals 12 marlas in Khasra No.336/72; 16 marlas in Khasra No.332/68; 08 kanals in Khasra No.68 min; 15 kanals 5 marlas in Khasra No.71 min; 06 kanals 2 marlas in Khasra No.69/2; and 1 kanal 13 marlas in Khasra No.67 situated at Village Kallar Himti, Tehsil & District Udhampur.

03. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 in connivance with the revenue agencies fraudulently succeeded in getting Mutation Nos.225 & 258 under Sections 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act attested in respect of one chunk of land and in respect of another chunk of land he succeeded in getting Mutation Nos.318 & 335 under Sections 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act attested in his favour. It has been further alleged that private respondents succeeded in getting mutation Nos.285 & 286 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act attested in their favour in respect of 3 rd chunk of land. Mutation No.225 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was attested by the Tehsildar concerned on 17.12.1981, whereas Mutation No.258 under Section 8 was attested by the Tehsildar on 03.05.1984 in one chunk of land. Similarly, in respect of second chunk of land, Mutation No.318 under Section 4 was attested by the Tehsildar Udhampur on 22.07.1987 whereas Mutation No.335 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was attested by the Tehsildar on 08.05.1988. In respect of the 3rd chunk of land, Mutation No.285 under Section 3 WP(C ) No.1051/2023; 1052/2023 & 1068/2023 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was attested by the Tehsildar on 17.10.1985 where after Mutation No.286 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was attested by the Tehsildar on 27.10.1985.

04. The record shows that these mutation orders in respect of three chunks of land, of which the petitioner claims to be the owner, were challenged by him by way of three separate appeals before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Udhampur in the year 2011. These appeals came to be dismissed by the Commissioner in terms of his order dated 04.01.2017. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by way of a revision before J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu. The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 26.12.2019 allowed the revision petition and remanded the matter to the Commissioner directing him to hear the parties on the application for condonation of delay and pass fresh orders.

05. It is in the backdrop of aforesaid facts, all the three appeals landed again before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Udhampur, who vide impugned orders dated 15.03.2023, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation by holding that the appellant/ petitioner herein has not explained the inordinate delay of 23-30 years in filing the appeals. Three separate orders have been passed by the Appellate Authority while dismissing all the three appeals filed by the petitioner. Against these three orders passed by the Appellate Authority on 15.03.2023, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the afore titled three writ petitions.

06. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur on the ground that the said 4 WP(C ) No.1051/2023; 1052/2023 & 1068/2023 Authority has not appreciated the controversy involved in the case in its correct perspective. According to the petitioner, the impugned Mutation orders have been passed by the Tehsildar concerned on the basis of manipulation and fraud played by the private respondent(s). It has been contended that the land, which is subject matter of the impugned mutations, is not the land as defined in the Agrarian Reforms Act because the same is "Banjer-kadeem" and as such exempt from the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act. It has been further contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest and the private respondent(s) or their predecessor-in- interest, as such, the benefit in terms of Section 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act could not have been extended in favour of the private respondent(s). It has also been contended that impugned mutations were attested by the Tehsildar in ex parte in respect of the estate left behind by Sh. Dina Nath, the father of the petitioner, and Sh. Parmanand, who had executed a will in favour of the petitioner. It has been averred that the petitioner did not gain the knowledge of the impugned mutations till the year 2011, when he came across the Patwari concerned who informed him about the attestation of these mutations, as such, there was no occasion for him to challenge these mutation orders prior to the year 2011. It has been contended that the learned Commissioner has disbelieved this explanation of the petitioner on the basis of conjectures and surmises.

07. Private respondent(s) have contested the petitions by filing their reply. In their reply, the private respondent(s) have submitted that their predecessor-in- interest was occupancy tenant in respect of the land in question even prior to the commencement of the Agrarian Reforms Act. It has been contended that in this regard entries in Jamabandi of 1967, 1968, 1971 and 1972 were existing in 5 WP(C ) No.1051/2023; 1052/2023 & 1068/2023 favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent(s) and after the commencement of the Agrarian Reforms Act, mutations under Sections 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act came to be attested in their favour. It has been further submitted that although entry in khasra-girdawari in some portion of the land reflected 04 kanals of land as "Banjer-kadeem" yet the Tehsildar in exercise of his powers under Rule 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Rules has changed the said entry after hearing the parties and after holding an enquiry, wherein it was found that the land in question is an agricultural land growing crops. Thus, according to the respondent(s), the land which is subject matter of the impugned mutation orders is the "land" as defined under the Agrarian Reforms Act and private respondent(s)/ their predecessor-in-interest being occupancy tenants of the said land were rightly vested with proprietary rights in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. It has been further contended that the petitioner was well aware of the attestation of the mutations orders, but he slept over the matter and challenged the same only after 23-30 years without explaining the delay.

08. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

09. A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur shows that the appeals filed by the petitioner have been dismissed on the ground of limitation without touching merits of the case. The question in these circumstances that is required to be determined by this Court is as to whether the petitioner has properly explained the delay in filing the appeals against the mutation orders which have been passed between the years 1981 to 1985, before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur. 6 WP(C ) No.1051/2023; 1052/2023 & 1068/2023

10. A look at the contents of the applications of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals, reveals that he has pleaded that he came to know about the impugned mutation orders from the Patwari concerned when he contacted him for getting revenue extracts of the land a few days before filing of the appeals. According to the petitioner, he had moved an application before the Tehsildar for obtaining certified copies of the mutation orders and the same were made available to him on 10.02.2011, whereafter he filed the appeals before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur in the year 2011 in the first round of limitation. Learned Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Udhampur, after appeals were remanded to him by the Tribunal for their fresh decision with a direction to assign reasons for his conclusion regarding the prayer of condonation of delay in filing the appeals, has observed that the petitioner cannot take shelter behind the averment that he came to know about the attestation of the mutations only in the year 2011. It has been observed by the Commissioner that by no stretch of imagination it can be assumed that the petitioner was ignorant about the passing of mutation orders, particularly when entire revenue record reflects about the long and uninterrupted Jamabandi and Girdawari entries in favour of the grandfather of private respondent(s) namely Allah Din and thereafter their father Allah Ditta, and subsequently in favour of the private respondents.

11. The aforesaid reasoning given by the learned Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur appears to be sound and logical because once the entries in the revenue record in respect of the land in question were being consistently shown in the name of private respondent(s) and their predecessor-in-interest for more than two decades, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to plead that 7 WP(C ) No.1051/2023; 1052/2023 & 1068/2023 he was unaware about these entries for all these years and that all of a sudden on fine morning he came to know about these entries when he came across the Patwari concerned.

12. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which requires to be noticed. At the time of attestation of mutation No.225 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act on 17.12.1981 the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Sh. Dina Nath, who happens to be his father, was present and his signatures are appended on the mutation order. In the said order, the names of Sh. Parmanand and Sh. Dina Nath, the father of the petitioner, are clearly recorded. Again while attesting mutation No.285 on 17.10.1985, the presence of petitioner is recorded and his signatures are also appearing in the mutation order. In the face of this overwhelming material on record, it can safely be stated that the petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest were all along in knowledge of the attestation of the impugned mutation orders in respect of the land in question. He has slept over the matter for decades together and has woken up from deep slumber only in the year 2011, and challenged the impugned mutation orders.

13. The law does not come to assistance of an indolent and lethargic litigant. The petitioner by his conduct has acquiesced in the impugned mutation orders. He cannot seek the indulgence of this Court to set these mutation orders at naught at this belated stage particularly when he has not been able to assign any reason much less a cogent reason for the delay.

14. In view of what has been discussed herein before, there does not appear to be any ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur. The reasoning and the logic given by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur for not exercising the 8 WP(C ) No.1051/2023; 1052/2023 & 1068/2023 discretion of condoning the delay in filing the appeals do not appear to be palpably erroneous and as such, it is not open to this Court to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petitions lack merit and are dismissed.

( Sanjay Dhar ) Judge Jammu 11.11.2024 Narinder Whether order is speaking? Yes Whether order is reportable? No Narinder Kumar 2024.11.13 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jammu & Kashmir High Court