Ravinder Kumar vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1299 j&K

                                           Supplementary Cause List No. 2
                                                   Sr. No. 3


        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

                                            Pronounced on: 13.10.2021

                                                WP(C) No. 1155/2020
                                                CM No. 3318/2020


Ravinder Kumar                                        .....Petitioner(s)


                      Through :- Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, Advocate.


                                     v/s


Union Territory of J&K and others                      ......Respondent(s)


                      Through :- Mr. S.S.Nanda, Sr. AAG.


     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

                                 JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner claims to have purchased 20 kanals of land falling under

Khasra No. 2471 min, Khata No. 1496 min and Khewat No. 49 situate at

Village Kote, Tehsil Jammu now Bhalwal, District Jammu from Rajinder

Kumar, stated to be the erstwhile owner of the property, by virtue of

registered Sale Deed and further that he is in physical possession of the

said property. The mutation also came to be registered in his favour. It

appears that the petitioner intends to sell one kanal of land out of the

aforesaid land and applied for issuance of Fard before the Revenue

Authority. The application has been rejected by the respondent No.3 vide

order dated 25.06.2020 and the same has been challenged in the present

petition. The petitioner also seeks quashment of Circular No. 03-FCR of

2019 dated 30.12.2019 whereby the respondent No.2 has issued certain

directions qua the issuance of revenue documents for transfer and

alienation of land which fall within the ambit of the Jammu and Kashmir

Big Landed Estates Abolition Act Svt. 2007 (hereinafter called the Act). It

is submitted that the circular issued by respondent No.2 is without

authority and the same is not in consonance with the provisions of the

Act. It is further submitted that the nature of the land of the petitioner

does not in any manner fall within the provisions of the Act which may

bar the alienation of the land in question.

2. The objections to the petition stand filed by the respondents wherein the

stand taken is that the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present

petition; that the respondent No.2 was within his powers to issue the

circular impugned under the Act. It is further stated that the ownership

rights of the petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest (seller of the land in

question) having been extinguished in view of the provisions of the Act

the Sale Deed registered in favour of the petitioner herein was void ab

initio. The mutation attested in favour of the petitioner is also, therefore,

null and void. The petition deserves to be dismissed.

3. Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated

the submissions made in the writ petition. It is argued that the provisions

of the Act do not deprive the present petitioner of having rights in the

property in question or to transfer the same in favour of some third party.

The circular issued by the respondent No.2 is without authority and in any

case runs contrary to the provisions of the Act.

4. Mr. S.S.Nanda, learned Sr. AAG has argued that the writ petition involves

disputed questions of fact and thus not maintainable. The circular has

been issued by the competent authority only in order to carry out the

provisions of the Act in letter and spirit. In any case, the petitioner cannot

seek relief in view of the express provisions of the Act which debar

certain lands from being subject matter of transfer or alienation.

5. The controversy involved in the present petition does not pertain merely

to the rights of the present petitioner to transfer the land or interest in the

same to another entity but also pertains to the rights of the so called owner

in the land in question in the year 1950 when the Act came into operation

or thereafter and further his right of alienation of land in favour of the

present petitioner. The matter also involves determination of factual

aspects intrinsically coupled with the law governing the subject which

cannot be adjudicated upon by the court in exercise of extra ordinary

jurisdiction vested in it.

6. It is not for this Court to direct issuance of Fard in favour of the petitioner

moreso when the right of the petitioner is itself under cloud and stands

disputed by the respondents in response to the claim preferred by the

petitioner.

7. The petitioner is required to approach the revenue authorities for redressal

of his grievance. The court has been informed that the circular in question

has been stayed by this court. The petitioner is at liberty to take all the

pleas which are available to him under law or has been raised in the

present writ petition before the competent authority. In case the petitioner

approaches the authorities with his grievance the grounds taken therein

shall be considered while deciding the case.

8. In view of the above, the petition is without merit and is, accordingly,

dismissed.

(Puneet Gupta) Judge Jammu:

13.10.2021 Pawan Chopra

Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No

PAWAN CHOPRA 2021.10.13 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document