VIJAY JAMWAL Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashment of order dtd. 20/7/2022, passed by respondent no. 2-Additional Deputy Commissioner (with the powers of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner) Jammu, (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellate Court'), vide which order passed by respondent no. 3-Tehsildar Nagrota, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as 'court below') to initiate proceedings under Sec. 28-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 ( for short 'Act') with respect to the subject land has been upheld.

(2.) Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, it shall be apt to have an overview of following uncontroverted facts.

(3.) Petitioner claims to be owner in possession of land measuring 09 kanals comprised of Khasra No. 93 min situate at village Khanpur, Tehsil Nagrota, which was reflected in the record of rights indicating that said land was purchased by the petitioner from one Sita Ram. According to the petitioner, he has been enjoying peaceful possession of the said land. One Banarsi Dass, questioned the title of the petitioner. A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction came to be filed by the petitioner in the Court of learned City Judge Jammu which was decreed in his favour. Said Banarsi Dass had also filed a petition before Assistant Settlement Officer, Jammu under Sec. 28-A of the Act which came to be dismissed on the ground that matter was subjudice before the Civil Court. Subsequently, private respondent no. 4, in the present case, preferred a petition before Deputy Commissioner, Jammu alleging inter alia that land in question had been sold in violation of the Act and proceedings under Sec. 28-A of the Act were required to be initiated. This petition also came to be dismissed by Assistant Settlement Officer on 22/2/2012 on the ground that Civil Court was seized of the matter. No appeal was preferred against the said order. Respondent no. 4 again represented before the Deputy Commissioner and learned court below proposed to initiate proceedings in terms of Sec. 28-A of the Act qua 5 kanals 16 marlas of land. This order came to be questioned by the petitioner and learned appellate court vide impugned order has upheld the order passed by the court below.