Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd. Ashraf Aged 80 Years vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir on 2 May, 2025
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
Sr. No. 8
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No.:- WP(C) No. 216/2023
CM No. 530/2023
Mohd. Ashraf aged 80 years
S/o Shaab Din
R/o village Lansi at present w.no. 2 Adarsh Colony,
Udhampur through his attorney son
Nadeem Anjum, age 35 years
S/o Mohd. Ashraf
R/O H. No. 319, Udhampur.
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ranjeev Dubey, Advocate.
Vs
1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Through its Commissioner/Secretary
Department of Revenue, Jammu.
2. Joint Commissioner
Agrarian Reforms, Jammu.
3. Tehsildar Udhampur (Khas) Udhampur.
4. Premu S/o Jyotu caste Megh Tehsil and District Udhampur.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate vice
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
02.05.2025
1. Mutation No. 269 dated 09.01.1987 followed by mutation
No. 273 dated 12.07.1987 came to be attested under
sections 4 and 8 respectively of the Jammu and Kashmir
Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 in favour of Premu s/o Jyotu
caste Megh r/o Udhampur thereby constituting him as an
owner of three (3) kanals and sixteen (16) marlas of land
comprising khasra No. 155 situated in village Lansi, tehsil
and district Udhampur. The mutations were attested by the
Tehsildar concerned.
2. Said two mutations came to be challenged on 15.10.1987 in
two appeals on files No. 1622 & 1623/Udh by one Shab Din
S/o Feroz Din R/o Lansi, tehsil Udhampur alleging that
instead of Premu-the respondent No. 4, it is he (Shab Din)
who was entitled to be the beneficiary of sections 4 and 8
mutations under Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms
Act, 1976 qua said land.
3. Said two appeals preferred before the Joint Agrarian
Reforms Commissioner, Jammu with powers of
Commissioner under Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 came to be
dismissed by virtue of an order dated 17.10.1989 holding
that at the time of attestation of the aforesaid two
mutations, applicant Shab Din was himself present
admitting the right and claim of Premu-the respondent No. 4
vis-à-vis the land in reference and, therefore, was not to be
heard in agitating against said two mutations.
4. It is the order dated 17.10.1989 which came to be
challenged by filing a present writ petition on 18.12.2023
i.e., after a gap of almost thirty three (33) years from the
date of passing of the order dated 17.10.1989 by the
petitioner who clams himself to be son of the appellant Shab
Din.
5. The writ petition has been filed acting through an attorney
by virtue of a general power of attorney dated 18.12.2020. A
bare perusal of the said general power of attorney would
show that the general power of attorney has been given by
the petitioner Mohd. Ashraf in favour of his son Nadeem
Anjum with respect to landed property comprising khasra
Nos. 115, 136, 137 and 116 situated in village Lansi, tehsil
and district Udhampur.
6. Thus, by no stretch of reference, the petitioner Mohd. Asharf
has meant and constituted his son Nadeem Anjum as
attorney holder to deal with the litigation related to the land
comprising khasra No. 155.
7. The very institution of the writ petition by the petitioner
through his attorney son on the basis of the general power
of attorney in reference from the very inception was
misconceived amounting to an abuse of process of law.
8. Be that as it may, even if the general power of attorney
would have been relatable to khasra No. 155, still the writ
petition is hopelessly afflicted with delay and laches for
accounting which the petitioner is coming with a purported
plea that he was not aware of any litigation so pending
between his father and the respondent No. 4. The same
cannot constitute a ground explaining delay and laches.
9. The petitioner's father Shab Din is said to have expired in
the year 1994 and he did not feel aggrieved of adverse
outcome of his said appeal to pass on any grievance of legal
nature for his successor-in-interest to carry on with legal
pursuit against two mutations and order in appeal.
10. The petitioner must have got himself entered in the revenue
record in terms of succession to his father's estate by getting
mutation of inheritance but nothing to that sort has been
whispered in the petition. The petitioner having earned
inheritance of his father and mutation, if any, related
therewith was supposed to be aware of the aspect that his
father was in litigation with the respondent No. 4 in relation
to khasra No. 155.
11. The petitioner, in filing the writ petition, has not come up
with clean hands as is borne out from the fact that he has
least bothered to even annex a certified copy, or for that
matter non-certified copy, of the memo of appeal which his
father Shab Din had filed in assailing two mutations
whereas, in his writ petition, the petitioner is meaning to
allege that his father was an illiterate and rustic person
whose thumb impressions on the impugned mutations came
to be taken on some false pretexts. Whether this was the
plea of his father Shab Din before the appellate court has
not been spelled out by the petitioner in his writ petition
obviously with an obliquity to create and craft a false excuse
to somehow come up with the writ petition in order to drag
the respondent No. 4 in a burdensome litigation to fetch
some brinkmanship.
12. Therefore, this Court holds the writ petition not
maintainable firstly on lack of authority of the attorney
holder to act on behalf of the petitioner in the matter of filing
present writ petition with respect to its subject matter and
secondly, even if the filing of the writ petition is by
authorized attorney then also the writ petition being
hopelessly afflicted with delay and laches which, by no
stretch of reference, could be accounted for and has not
been accounted for by the petitioner.
13. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with
connected application(s).
14. A copy of this judgment be sent to Tehsildar Khas,
Udhampur for being taken on record by reference to revenue
record related to two mutations.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
02.05.2025
Naresh/Secy.
Whether order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether order is reportable: Yes/No
