LASSA SAHIB Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have moved this court under Article 32(2 -A) of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for issuance of a writ of certiorari in respect of Government Order No. REV(S) 287 of 1967 dated 23 -8 -1967 and declaring it as ultra vires and in effective and also for issuing a writ of mandamus in the name of the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners possession in the land. The petitioners have averred that in pursuance of Government order No. S. 1069 of 1966 dated 16 -11 -1966 (vide annexure III) land measuring 77 kanals and 18 marlas comprising Khasra Nos. 485, 486, 487, 963, 963/488, 965/488 and 964/609 min situated in village Maij Tehsil Pulwama recorded as Kahcharai was recorded as Khalsa. Afterwards the Government directed the Deputy Commissioner Anantnag to allot the said land under LB -7/C of 1958 in favour of the petitioners in equal shares. This order is Rev. LB/69/39 dated December 20, 1966 (Vide annexure II). In pursuance of this order the petitioners were recorded as allottees in the revenue papers and came into possession as such. The petitioners effected improvements upon the land and incurred lot of expenses on it. It is further averred that the Government subsequently on 23rd of August, 1967 passed the impugned order (vide annexure I) No. REV S -287 of 1967 dated 23 -8 -1967 and directed that the conversion of the Kahcharai land into Khalsa in village Maij Tehsil Pulwama be rescinded and the status quo ante restored. The Deputy Commissioner Anantnag was asked to cancel the allotment in favour of the petitioners and to restore status quo ante. The petitioners seek the quashing of the impugned order on the ground that it amounts to depriving the petitioners of their property except in due course of law to expropriate the petitioners. The order is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice as no notice to the petitioners was given before cancellation of allotment. No cancellation of allotment could be made without compensation being paid to the petitioners. The petition is supported by an affidavit.

(2.) OBJECTIONS have been filed by the State. A number of persons who are the residents of the said village have also appeared as interveners and have sought to contest this application. This was permitted. In his reply affidavit Secretary to Government Revenue Department Mr. Yog Dhian has sworn that the petitioners have no right in the land. An allottee of the land under Government Order No. LB -7 -C of 1958 is a mere licencee and holds no title to it. In the present case there was no valid allotment. The petitioners are not entitled to seek any remedy by way of a writ petition. It is denied that the land recorded as Kahcharai in the record of rights could be so changed into Khalsa and entered as such in the revenue record. There was an initial mistake in ordering the nature of the change in the land. Such a change in the land could not be ordered in the manner it was done. The entire village population was interested and had a legal title and right in the land which could neither be converted into Khalsa land nor allotted to the petitioners. It was on the representation of the village community that the order of change in the entry and subsequent order of allotment were not found in accordance with law, as such both the orders were rescinded. Entry of possession in favour of the petitioners, if any, did not confer any right or title on the petitioners. The Secretary has expressed his ignorance in regard to any improvement effected on the land. It is further averred that an order of allotment under G.O. No. LB/7 -C of 1958 could not be passed without observing the special procedure enumerated therein. As no such procedure was adopted in this case the allotment did not confer upon the petitioners the status of allottees. There was no deprivation of any property. The allegation of expropriation, it is submitted, is also misconceived as the petitioners were not proprietors of the land. The impugned order was just and proper. The petitioners were not entitled to any compensation.

(3.) THE interveners have also contested the petition and have urged that the order of allotment was not in accordance with law. Moreover, the action of the Government in converting the land from Kahcharai into Khalsa was not proper as the entire village population depend upon this piece of land for grazing purposes. The petitioners were not in cultivating possession of the allotted land. The interveners have prayed that the order of the Government directing the cancellation of the allotment be held as intra vires by the Court and it be held that the conversion of the land into Khalsa was not according to law as it affected the vital interests of the village community.