Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

09. Tehsildar, Agrarian Reforms after long drawn litigation between Shri Ghasitu Ram, his grandson (legatee) and reversionaries finally made mutation order no. 4192 under Section 4 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 on 06.05.1987 in favour of appellant as prospective owner of the land in dispute. This was followed by mutation order No. 4210 under Section 8 of the Act in favour of appellant as owner of the land in dispute on deposit of levy under rules. The mutation orders were made in presence of Devi Dass father of the appellant and Shri Hem Raj one of his brothers. Appellant deposited the levy and assumed the status of owner of the land in dispute. This gave rise to second phase litigation  now between appellant and his others-brothers and paternal cousins. The litigation is still pending in shape of Letters Patent Appeal on hand.

10. S/Shri Dev Raj and Sham Lal sons of Devi Dass  brothers of Baldev Raj  appellant herein, preferred appeal against the order of Tehsildar, Agrarian Reforms, Jammu dated 06.05.1987 whereby mutation under Section 4 was attested in favour of appellant as prospective owner of the land in dispute. The case up was that the appellants and other legal heirs of Shri Ghasitu Ram were entitled to share in the land in dispute and the mutation order made in favour of only one legal heir i.e. Baldev Raj  present appellant, was against law and facts and, therefore, liable to be set aside. They insisted that Shri Ghasitu Ram had no right to will away the land in dispute and, therefore, the will claimed by the appellant to have been executed on 09.02.1965 was devoid of any legal consequence. Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, Jammu dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, without looking into other aspects of the case set up by the appellants in the memo of appeal.

12. The order of Tribunal dated 30.12.2009 was questioned by the appellant through a writ petition being OWP no. 72/2010 primarily on the ground that cultivating possession of the appellant having been confirmed by the Tribunal in its order dated 05.11.1986, upholding the order of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms dated 22.12.1983 and Collector, Agrarian Reforms dated 05.05.1981, it was not open to the Tribunal to re-open the question of appellants possession over the land in dispute in 1971 Kharief. It was pleaded that the High Court impleaded the appellant as Legal Representative of Ghasitu Ram in Civil Second Appeal filed by the reversionaries, and dismissed on 19.04.1973; that the reversionaries brought execution petition only against the appellant and none amongst the respondents contested the execution petition; that the mutation order nos. 4192 under Section 4 dated 06.05.1987 and 4210 under Section 8 dated 04.06.1987 were attested by Tehsildar, Agrarian Reforms in compliance of Tribunal order dated 05.11.1986; that the question of possession, therefore, had assumed finality and Tesildar Agrarian Reforms cannot be said to have made mutation orders on his own without examining the record.

13. It was next insisted that as the Tribunal had held the appeals not to be barred by limitation, right course for the Tribunal was to remand the matter to the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms for disposal on merits and not to assume the role of the Appellate Forum and itself decide the matter on merits. The Tribunal was said to have failed to appreciate that the respondents had filed revision petition against the orders of Tehsildar, Agrarian Reforms dated 06.05.1987 and 04.06.1987 and not against the order of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms dated 16.02.2005 and that in absence of challenge to order of the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms dated 16.02.2005 whereby Tehsildar, Agrarian Reforms orders dated 06.05.1987 and 04.06.1987 were left undisturbed, the revision petition was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that as mutation orders dated 06.05.1987 and 04.06.1987 were admittedly recorded in presence of Devi Dass  father of the parties and Shri Hem Raj  brother of appellant (respondent no. 6 in present LPA), the Tribunal was not right in its conclusion that the mutation orders dated 06.05.1987 and 04.06.1987 were made at the back of the private respondents. It was argued that presence of Devi Dass  father of the private respondents would amount to their presence, inasmuch as their interests were represented by their father.