Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Further this court finds that an attempt has been made by the petitioner to craft a new ground that application for resumption was not filed by the ex- owners, as this ground was never raised in appeal, revision as well as in 2014:JKLHC-SGR:17 the present writ petition. Record depicts that for the first time, for the disposal of writ petition, the relevant record was sent for vide order dated 29.10.2009. As is evident from the order dated 02.02.2011, the Tehsildar, Anantnag appeared in person and stated that some of the records were washed away by floods so he could not lay his hands on the Resumption Form as is stated to have been filed by the landlord. Tehsildar, Anantnag was directed to file affidavit in support of his claim. Thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.03.2011, to be subsequently restored on 24.07.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner taking advantage of the statement made by Tehsildar, Anantnag embarked upon a journey to craft and prepare a new ground for throwing challenge to mutation No. 860 that application for resumption was not filed by the ex- owners, which as already stated above, was never raised anywhere in the appeal, revision and even in this writ petition. This court vide order dated 22.08.2024 after taking note of order dated 29.10.2009 directed Tehsildar, Anantnag to file an affidavit demonstrating as to what happened to the resumption form. An affidavit came to filed by the Tehsildar, Anantnag that after getting report from field functionaries, it transpires that Parat Sarkar of mutation No. 860 of Estate Hardu Sichan is not available in the record of this Tehsil as most of the records of this Tehsil have got destroyed due to the floods in the year 2014. The petitioner has also placed on record endorsement made on the application in respect of non- availability of resumption form, through the medium of CM No. 6654/2024. This court has not even an iota of doubt, that the story of non- availability of resumption form has been cooked by the petitioner only 2014:JKLHC-SGR:17 after the Tehsildar, Anantnag for the first time in the year 2011 made statement that some of the records were washed away by floods so he could not lay his hands on the Resumption Form. The petitioner in fact wants to extract the benefit from the factum of loss of record in floods and is trying to raise a new ground, which is an afterthought and as such cannot be taken note of in the writ petition.