GULLA MIR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against order dated 20th March, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No.58 of 2003, whereby the writ petition, challenging the order dated 31.11.1999 of J&K Special Tribunal, has been dismissed.

(2.) THE appellants are tenants of Ali Mir and Ghulam Hassan Mir, co -sharers of the land bearing survey No. 12 and 75/13 measuring four kanals and eighteen marlas situated at Village Naidgund, Shopian. The Tehsildar, Agrarian Reforms attested mutation u/s 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 declaring the appellants prospective owner and conferred proprietary rights respectively upon the appellants in respect of the aforesaid land. The mutation No.77 of 1984 attested under section 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 was challenged by means of an appeal by Ali Mir, co -sharer, before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Srinagar, who, vide order dated 9.1.1989, while accepting the appeal, set -aside the mutation and directed the Tehsildar to hold a de novo inquiry and pass fresh orders. The Tehsildar, vide order dated 17.4.1989, accepted the resumption form of Ali Mir, co -sharer, and permitted him to retain half of the land. This order was challenged before the Appellate Court, i.e. Additional Dy. Commissioner, Pulwama. The appeal was rejected vide order dated 13.5.1989. This order was challenged before the J&K Special Tribunal by means of a Revision Petition which came to be decided on 30.11.1999, observing that order passed by the Tehsildar is erroneous to the extent that the Tehsildar could not have permitted Ali Mir to retain half of the land being beyond his share. The Revisional Court determined the share of Ali Mir, to the extent of one kanal and four marlas, and disposed of the revision petition, observing as under: "...Out of 4 kanals and 18 marlas of land, ownership rights were conferred upon the petitioners herein to the extent of 2 kanals 9 marlas and since deceased Hassan Mir had not filed the resumption application in terms of Section 7 of A. R. Act, thus it would appear that the Tehsildar and Commissioner have committed an error in allowing respondent No.1 Ali Mir to resume half of the land out of 4 kanals 18 marlas, whereas they could have, in such circurmstances, allowed. respondent No. 1 to resume the land only to the extent of his own share i.e, 1 kanal 4 marlas of land out of 4 kanals 18 marlas. Thus, it is held that respondent No. I Ali Mir is entitled to resume only 1 kanal and 4 marlas of land out of 4 kanals and 18 marlas falling under survey Nos.75/13 and 12 situated at Naidgund...."

(3.) THE appellant challenged the aforesaid order by means of OWP No.58/2000, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.3.2003. Aggrieved of the order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that Courts below have not considered a vital fact that there was no resumption form submitted by Ali Mir before the Tehsildar, in terms of the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act.