Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Dev Raj vs Ut Of J&K & Anr on 6 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Serial No. 204
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2769/2025
CM No. 6355/2025
Dev Raj
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. F.S. Butt, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K & Anr.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Chetna Manhas, Assisting Counsel
to Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
(06.10.2025)
01. The petitioner-Dev Raj claims to be owner in possession
of a piece of land measuring 10 Marlas falling under
khasra No. 45 situated at village Bishal Jattan, Tehsil
and District Udhampur.
02. The petitioner is stated to have acquired ownership of the
land in question in terms of Government Order S-432 of
1966 dated 03.06.1966 in which one of the conditions
incorporated was that owners of such land shall not
alienate the same without prior permission of the
Government and that the land shall be used only for the
agricultural purpose. The petitioner in support of his
contention that there are no fetters upon his right to
alienate the aforesaid land, is relying upon the ratio laid
down by this Court in the cases of Mohammad Akbar
Shah and ors. Vs. State and ors.; AIR 2017 J&K 14 as
also the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of
Angrez Singh Vs. UT of J&K and ors; AIR 2023 J&K
533.
03. Learned counsel for the respondents while contesting this
writ petition has stated that one of the conditions
attached to Government Order No. S-432 of 1966 is that
grantee has to use the land only for agricultural purposes
and the said grantee is not entitled to alienate it without
previous permission of the Government. Thus, the
revenue extract for the purpose of alienation of the land
owned and possessed by the petitioner cannot be issued
in his favour.
04. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
record of the case.
05. The question that is required to be determined in this
case is that as to whether the action of the respondent
No. 2-Tehsildar, Udhampur, in refusing to issue revenue
extracts (Fard) for the purpose of alienation of land
owned and possessed by the petitioner is sustainable in
law. It is not in dispute that the land in respect of which
the petitioner is seeking copy of revenue extract for the
purpose of alienation, has been acquired by him in terms
of Government Order No. S-432 of 1966 dated
03.06.1966 in which a condition was imposed that
grantees of such land shall not be entitled to alienate the
same without the permission of the Government. The
question as to whether the land acquired by a person in
terms of the Government Order No. S-432 of 1966 dated
03.06.1966 can be alienated by the owner thereof is no
longer res integra and this Court in the case of
Mohammad Akbar Shah's case (supra) has set the
controversy at rest by holding that a person who has
been conferred the proprietary rights in terms of Order
No. S-432 of 1966 is not precluded from alienating the
said land. The relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced as under:-
"10. After the petitioner No.1 was conferred with
proprietary rights over the land in terms of order of
1966, the said order outlived its life to the extent of
petitioner No.1. His rights thereafter were governed
by the Transfer of Property Act, Land Alienation Act
and Agrarian Reforms Act. The Act of 1976, in view
of the mandate contained in its section 31, did forbid
alienation of land defined under it. However, section
31 of the Act of 1976 was omitted in the year 1997.
The express provision, forbidding sale of the land,
defined in the Act of 1976, was, thus, removed by the
Statute itself. The condition contained at paragraph
04 of the order of 1966 for seeking permission for
alienation of land, in view of the provisions of the
Act of 1976, more particularly, section 42(1), thus,
has ceased to be in operation. Even otherwise,
attaching the condition of seeking permission for
alienation of land in respect of which, proprietary
rights stands conferred, is against the concept of
exercising complete dominion over the land, of
which proprietary rights were conferred on
petitioner No.1. After becoming absolute owner of
the land, restriction could not be imposed for its
alienation. Such a condition could be imposed only
by an act of legislation. Initially a like condition was
imposed in terms of section 31 of the Act of 1976 but
the said provision was, subsequently, omitted. The
land was permitted to be alienated to a limited extent
for the purpose of construction of residential house.
11. It appears that the condition of seeking previous
permission from the Government for alienation of
land, in respect of which, ownership rights were
conferred by the government as the person was
holding the land as tenant under the State, was done
with the purpose to ensure that the benefit of land
accrues to the grantee and he uses it for agriculture
purposes.
12. In earlier times, agriculture activity was the
backbone of economy of the State. The land, which
was given for agriculture purposes to a State subject,
was to ameliorate the sufferings of such person/his
family. Now the times have changed. The agriculture
activity is no more the main economic activity of the
State. The condition of seeking previous permission
of the Government for alienation of land, which was
given for agriculture purposes, in terms of
paragraph 04 of the order of 1966, is rendered
otiose and will not effect right of the owner of land to
alienate the same provided other statutory
requirements are fulfilled for such alienation."
06. From the foregoing analysis of the legal position, it is
clear that this Court has held that condition of seeking
previous permission of the Government for alienation of
land which was allotted for agricultural purposes in
terms of order No. S-432 of 66 dated 03.06.1966 has
been declared as otiose and the same, therefore, would
not affect right of the owner of the land to alienate the
same.
07. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
the respondents are proposing to assail judgments
passed by this Court on the strength of the ratio laid
down in Mohammad Akbar Shah's case (supra) and as
such, hearing of the present case may be deferred.
08. I am afraid the request of learned counsel for the
respondents cannot be acceded to for the reason that the
ratio laid down in Mohammad Akbar Shah's case (supra)
has been consistently followed by this Court in all
subsequent decisions on the issue. During all these
years, the respondents have not assailed the said
judgment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
has not produced any order of any superior forum
whereby any judgment passed by this Court on the basis
of ratio laid down in Mohammad Akbar Shah's case
(supra) has been stayed or set aside. Therefore, the
request of learned counsel for the respondents cannot be
acceded to.
09. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in Mohammad
Akbar Shah's case (supra), it is not open to the
respondents to refuse the issuance of revenue extract in
respect of the land owned and possessed by the petitioner
on the ground that the same has been acquired by him in
terms of Government Order No. S-432 of 66 dated
03.06.1966.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is
issued to the respondent No. 2-Tehsildar, Udhampur, to
furnish revenue extracts/Fard Intekhab in respect of the
land owned and possessed by the petitioner for the
purpose of its proposed alienation.
11. Disposed of.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
06.10.2025
SUNIL
Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes
Whether the order is reportable ? : No
