Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.21 seconds)Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976
Joginder Kour And Ors. vs State Of J&K; And Ors. on 23 February, 2018
ordinate Bench of this court in case, titled,„Kanta Devi vs. Kaki
Devi', 2011(4)JKJ(HC)16 and 'Joginder Kour vs. State of J&K
& Ors.', 2014(2)JKJ(HC)323, to arrive at the conclusion that
after the demise of original allottee, his interest shall devolve in
terms of Rule 15-(B) of Cabinet Order 578-C.
Section 3 in Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Makhan Singh vs Amar Nath And Ors. on 10 July, 2014
15. In S. Kirpal Singh‟s case (supra), the writ court had held that
right to transfer by sale, gift or mortgage under section 3-A of
Agrarian Reforms Act includes other modes of transfer also.
While deciding the above issue, the Division Bench of this Court
had held that transfer of occupancy rights by sale, mortgage and
gift does not include the transfer by will or testamentary
disposition. It appears that Rule 15-B of Cabinet Order No. 1954-
C was not brought to the notice of Division Bench and as such,
the Division Bench had no occasion to consider the applicability
of Rule 15-B of Cabinet Order No. 1954-C vis-a-vis the
applicability of Section 67 of the Tenancy Act for determination
of devolution of interest after the demise of allottee. Thus, the
aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench cannot be said to have
determined the issue conclusively, in absence of consideration of
Rule 15-B of Cabinet Order 578-C. It would be apt to take note
9
WP(C) No. 287/2023
of another judgment of the Division Bench in case titled
'Makhan Singh vs. Amar Nath & Ors.', 2015(1) JKJ 679,
wherein it has been held as under:
Mangli Devi @ Chemali Thru Hr Legal Heirs ... vs Jagmal on 17 May, 2022
8. Mr. Ved Raj Wazir, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
argued that the rights of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are to
be governed by Section 67 of the Tenancy Act, as the occupancy
6
WP(C) No. 287/2023
rights were conferred upon them in terms of section 3-A of
Agrarian Reforms Act and Rule 15-B of the Cabinet Order No.
578-C of 1954 was not applicable at all. He has placed reliance
upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in 'S.Kirpal
Singh vs. S. Suchet Singh and Ors., 2017JKJ ONLINE 8494'
and the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case
titled „Mangli Devi vs. Jagmal', 2022 Latest Case Law 4779.
1