Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Mohan Lal Angral vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 4 September, 2025

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                                Sr. No. 75



       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                       AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 2651/2024
c/w
WP(C) No. 1694/2025
WP(C) No. 1771/2025

Mohan Lal Angral                                             .....Appellants

                     Through:   Mr. Kashif Malik, Advocate vice
                                Mr. Aseem Kumar Sawhney, Sr. Advocate
                                Mr. Bhavesh Bhushan, Advocate in WP(C) No.
                                1771/2025

               Vs

UT of J&K and ors.
                                                           ..... Respondents

                     Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
                            ORDER

04.09.2025

1. By this common judgment, afore titled three writ

petitions involving identical question of law are proposed to be

disposed of.

2. The petitioner-Mohan Lal Angral claims to be owner in

possession of a piece of land falling under khasra No. 1604 of village

Birpur Tehsil Samba. The petitioner-Karan Singh claims to be owner

in possession of land measuring 02 kanals falling in khasra No.

589/192 of village Taraf Bala Tehsil Nagri Parole and District

Kathua and the petitioners-Ram Parshad etc (writ petitioners in

WP(C) No. 177/2025) claim to be owners in possession of land

falling under different khasra numbers situated at village Budhi

Tehsil and District Kathua.

3. All the writ petitioners are 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 petitioners in

support of their contention that there are no fetters upon their right

to alienate the aforesaid land, are 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.

4. The respondent-State has contested the writ petitions by

filing its reply in which it has been submitted 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

petitioners cannot be issued in their favour.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

record of the case.

6. The question that is required to be determined in these

cases is that as to whether the action of the respondents in refusing

to issue revenue extracts (Fard) for the purpose of alienation of land

owned and possessed by the petitioners is sustainable in law. It is

not in dispute that the land in respect of which the writ petitioners

are seeking copy of revenue extract for the purpose of alienation,

has been acquired by them inn 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."

7. 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.

8. 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.