NAZIR AHMAD MOORI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the successive findings of the Revenue Courts from the Assistant Commissioner through Divisional Commissioner to Financial Commissioner, whereby and whereunder they have upheld the correction of revenue entries with regard to Survey No. 404/184 Min situate at Mamal, Tehsil Pahalgam to the extent of showing Respondents Nos. 5 to 10 as having been in the possession of the land which was reportedly acquired by the Government, compensation whereof to the extent of 1/2 of the amount stands already released in favour of the Petitioners and other half withheld.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned Orders have been passed without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Revenue Authorities concerned, while issuing the same, have not appreciated the controversy involved in its true and correct perspective and have relied upon the photostat copies of the revenue documents which do not come within the import and purport of admissible evidence in terms of the Law of Evidence. It is contended that the intending Department has taken the possession from the Petitioners after private negotiations in the year 1989 and that the Petitioners have executed a sale deed in favour of the intending Department with respect to the land measuring 08 Kanals, which said sale deed was duly registered before the learned Sub Registrar, Pahalgam. It is pleaded that the private Respondents were in full knowledge of the acquisition proceedings as the work of construction of Mini Hydel Project, Pahalgam related to the year 1989, whereafter the private Respondents did not agitate the matter till August, 1995, thus the application filed by them before the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag was directly hit by the law of limitation and could not have been taken cognizance of by the revenue authorities concerned. The learned Counsel has proceeded to state that the action and inaction on the part of the private Respondents in not agitating the matter before the civil Court within the period of limitation has also excluded them from taking any compensation with respect to the land in question, as such, the impugned Orders are bad in law.

(3.) On notice having been issued, the Respondents, both official as well as private, have filed their Objections, thereby resisting and controverting the averments/ contentions made by the Petitioners.