SHAMUS UD DIN GOJAR Vs. ABDUL RASHID MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated 30.6.2003 in file No.STS/1031/2003 passed by J&K Special Tribunal Srinagar allowing the revision against the order passed by the Collector Agrarian Reforms, Shopian and Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Pulwama dated 19.12.2002 and 30.6.2003 respectively.

(2.) Heard counsel for the parties. One Shams-ud-Din Gojar, writ petitioiner filed an application on 2.6.1997 before Dy.Commissioner,Pulwama for spot inspection of the land in dispute on allegation that non applicant, Abdul Rashid Malik is harassing him. The SDM Shopian after obtaining report from Tehsildar Shopian, on report that said Abdul Rashid was in possession of about 3 kanals of land for last over 40 years, has found that the non/applicant Abdul Rashid Malik is in unauthorized possession of the land, notwithstanding the possession of A.R.Malik is traceable to unregistered document executed between the father of the petitioner and one Noor Mohd through whom non applicant is claiming land and asserting the possession. In Appeal, Commissioner Agrarian Pulwama passed an order upholding this order of SDM.

(3.) The Tribunal has examined the factual matrix of the dispute raised as also the question of law. It is found by the Tribunal that what Shams-ud-Din Gojar had prayed before the revenue authorities was just Nishandhi of his land and nothing further. The Collector Agrarian Reforms Shopian and Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Pulwama have both laboured to make out a case for petitioner which he never preferred before these authorities. Admittedly, the possession of non-applicant/respondent is rooted and tacked to the unregistered document dated 20th Savan,2009 Bk. And in the document with regard to the possession of predecessor in interest of the respondent to the writ petition there is clear recital and admission on the part of petitioner's father, predecessor in title and interest of the writ petitioner, that possession is and shall remain with the responsdent. The Tribunal was right in observing that under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, these documents can be used for collateral purposes and nature of possession can be judged by the recital in conjunction with evidence on record. The petitioner's case falls outside the ambit of the Agrarian Reforms Act, in so far as respondent is in permissible possession and not a trespasser, as observed by the Tribunal.