MUSHTAQ AHMAD PANDIT Vs. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of and has called in question order dtd. 16/9/2021 and order dtd. 17/6/2022, both passed by the Additional Commissioner (Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Anantnag in an application for condonation of delay and appeal captioned Gh. Rasool Shah v. Mushtaq Ahmad Pandit respectively. Vide impugned order dtd. 16/9/2021, Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, Anantnag has condoned the delay for filing the appeal against the order of Assistant Commissioner Revenue (Collector Agrarian Reforms), Anantnag dtd. 16/7/2005. By a subsequent order passed on 30/6/2022, the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms had allowed the appeal and set aside order dtd. 16/7/2005 passed by the Collector Agrarian Reforms, Anantnag.

(2.) Briefly put, the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are in the following manner:- On 29/6/2005, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction before the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Anantnag. In the suit, the petitioner sought a declaration to the effect that he was owner of the land measuring 2 kanal 11 marlas comprising Khasra No.339 situated at village Uranhall ["the subject land"] belonging to respondent No.3 by way of adverse possession. The case set up by the petitioner in the suit was that he was put in possession of the subject land in pursuance of a sale agreement drawn in his favour by respondent No.3 against a sale consideration of Rs.16,76,000.00. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.5,01,100.00 to respondent No.3 at the time of execution of the sale agreement. The petitioner also claimed that later the sale deed was not executed by respondent No.3. On the presentation of the suit, the Collector Agrarian Reforms summoned respondent No.3, who instead of contesting the suit entered into an amicable settlement with the petitioner. A compromise deed in writing entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3, too, was submitted and as a result whereof, the Collector Agrarian Reforms declared the petitioner as owner of the subject land vide order dtd. 16/7/2005. While the petitioner and respondent No.3 had buried the hatchet in terms of the compromise deed, the Collector Agrarian Reforms acting suo moto summoned the petitioner and respondent No.3 and reversed his earlier order dtd. 16/7/2005 by passing a fresh order dtd. 1/9/2005. The earlier order was recalled on the ground that the compromise was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was sham and attempted to defeat the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act as also to effectuate transfer of immovable property in disguise of sale deed. Order dtd. 1/9/2005 passed by the Collector Agrarian Reforms, Anantnag was challenged by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner Revenue (with Powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms), Srinagar in an appeal. The Financial Commissioner Revenue vide its order dtd. 20/5/2009 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of Collector Agrarian Reforms, Anantnag. Respondent No.3, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Financial Commissioner Revenue/ Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Srinagar filed revision before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal. The revision petition was dismissed and the order of the Financial Commissioner/Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms was upheld by the Tribunal vide its order dtd. 28/6/2013. It seems that while the revision petition was pending before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, respondent No.3 filed an appeal against order dtd. 16/7/2005 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms), Anantnag. The appeal was belated and was, thus, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of more than four years. Vide order dtd. 16/9/2021, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag condoned the delay and took up the appeal for consideration on merits. The appeal, too, was considered and disposed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) Anantnag vide impugned order dtd. 17/6/2022. Both the orders i.e. one passed on application for condonation of delay and another on the appeal on merits are subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(3.) The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 condoning the delay of more than four years in filing the appeal is assailed primarily on the ground that respondent No.1 has committed grave error in condoning the inordinate delay of more than four years without being satisfied about the sufficient cause, which prevented respondent No.3 to file appeal within time. The order is, thus, assailed being an outcome of non-application of mind.