KULBHUSHAN SINGH Vs. SURAM SINGH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revisions have been preferred against the same order viz. order dated 26.8,1998 passed by Collector (Assistant Commissioner) Jammu rejecting the petition filed under Sec. 3(n) read with Sec. 19 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. Not only that, there are same parties in both these revisions apart from State of J&K. In the circumstances, the Tribunal propose to decide both the revisions by a common judgement.

(2.) In order to come to the grips, it would be appropriate to give a brief resume of the dispute. Chatter Singh was a big landlord whose landed estate was exceeding 182 Kanals of land in village Pargwal Tehsil Akhnoor. Private respondents are grand sons of late Chatter Singh. J&K Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 2007 (1959 A.D) (shortly referred as "B.L.E.A., Act") came into operation in the year 1950, as a result of which, land measuring 206 kanals and 14 marlas which was in excess of 182 kanals was escheated to the State under mutation Nos. 219 and 220. These mutations were challenged before the Deputy Commissioner Jammu alleging that Chatter Singh during his life time had partitioned his estate between himself and his sons by way of a private settlement. The Deputy Commissioner Jammu accepted their plea and remanded the matter to Special Tehsildar Akhnoor. The Special Tehsildar vide his order dated 19.4.1959 accepted their plea of private partition and passed mutation No. 381 in their favour. However, the said mutation was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner by way of revision. Disagreeing with the view taken by the special Tehsildar, the Divisional Commissioner Jammu vide his decision dated 2.7.1975 made recommendation to the learned Financial Commissioner for setting aside of mutation No. 381. The learned Financial Commissioner agreed with the findings of the Divisional Commissioner Jammu and upheld his recommendations and allowed the revision by his judgement dated 11.9.1975 and quashed mutation order No. 381 of village Pargawal. Consequently, it was held that the original mutation Nos. 219 and 220 shall continue to remain in force.

(3.) Having given the background it is therefore, clear that mutation Nos. 219 and 220 attained finality under the provisions of B.L.E.A. Act and this thus by operation of Sec. 4 of B.L.E.A. Act, ownership rights of ex-proprietor Chatter Singh stood extinguished in the surplus land covered by mutation Nos. 219 and 220. Here it may not be out of place to mention here that there were no tillers of these lands at the time right of ownership of Chatter Singh was extinguished under Sec. 4 and as such, under Sec. 6 of land vested in the State from the date of commencement of the Act, Under sub-section (2) of Sec. 6 of B.L.E.A. Act, the Government had the power to utilise the said land in such manner as it may decide or permit the ex-proprietor to retain possession of the land subject to such terms and conditions as were settled by the revenue Minister or an officer unauthorised by him in this behalf. It is also an admitted position in the case that the ex-proprietor or his two sons namely Capt, Gandharb Singh and Sewa Singh or their children were not at any point of time permitted to retain the possession of this land under sub-section (2) of Sec. 6 of B.L.E.A, Act.