CHAMEL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order of respondent No. 3 dated 29.04.2009 and of respondent No. 4 dated 07.03.2010 passed on mutation No. 2413 with regard to land bearing Khasra No. 807 min/224 measuring 28 kanals 09 marlas situated at Kundrorian, Tehsil Reasi on the ground that the petitioners and respondents Nos. 5 & 6 are co-owners/co-sharers of a big chunk of land situated at Kundrorian, Village Puranadroor, Katra. It is averred in the petition that vide mutation No. 824, one Lachhan was declared as prospective owner with regard to land bearing khasra Nos. 807/224 measuring 37 kanals 09 marlas situated at Kundrorian and vide mutation No. 1076 dated 13.09.1993, application filed by respondents 5 & 6 under Section 7 of Agrarian Reforms Act for resumption of land was rejected by respondent No. 3, which was challenged by respondent Nos. 5 & 6 before respondent No. 10, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur who was vested with powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms. The appeal came to be rejected. The rejection order dated 07.11.2003 passed by respondent No. 10 in appeal was challenged by respondents 5 & 6 before respondent No. 3, who vide order dated 29.04.2009 set aside the aforesaid order in view of the compromise between respondent No. 5 & 6 and respondent No. 9.The case was remanded to respondent No. 4 with a direction to attest the mutation in terms of compromise deed dated 17.02.2009. Respondent No. 4 attested mutation No. 2413 dated 07.03.2010 by virtue whereof rights to the extent of 09 kanals with regard to land bearing khasra Nos. 807/224 were conferred in favour of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 while to the extent of land measuring 19 kanals 09 marls, the rights were conferred in favour of respondent Nos. 7 & 9. Petitioners, feeling aggrieved, are seeking quashment of order dated 29.04.2009 and 07.03.2010 respectively passed by respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 filed objections to the petition which were adopted by other respondents except respondent Nos. 7 & 9 who were set ex-parte. It is pleaded that the land under survey Nos. 807/224 was in cultivating possession of Lachhan and after his demise, the same fell in the hands of his widow, respondent No. 9. It is pleaded that Lachhan was a tenant under the grandfather of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 who sought resumption of land out of khasra Nos. 807/224. Father of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 died during the life time of his father. The resumption application was declined. Appeal carried against the same too was dismissed. Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 assailed the same before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, where a compromise was recorded between respondents 5 & 6 and respondent No. 9, in terms whereof respondent No. 9 agreed to part with 09 kanals of land out of khasra No. 807/224 in favour of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 while 24 kanals 09 marlas was agreed to be retained by respondent No. 9. The revision petition filed before the Tribunal came to be disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 4 to attest the mutations under Section 7 & 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act in terms of the compromise. Mutation No. 2413 was attested by respondent No. 4 accordingly. It is pleaded that since there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and Lachhan, they were not entitled to resumption of land. Thus, the writ petition was not maintainable. It is further pleaded that petitioners have filed a civil suit for declaration and partition pending adjudication before the learned District Judge, Reasi wherein they seek to draw their title through one Prithi Singh by laying a false claim that Prithi Singh had been adopted by Shiv Ram. It is pleaded that Prithi Singh had inherited the property of his natural father Jaru and this fact is reflected in Jamabandi. It is further pleaded that Prithi Singh never enjoyed the status of co-owner/co-sharer with the respondents. Thus, the petitioners have no right to question mutation No. 2413 and the writ petition is not maintainable.

(3.) In view of the objections raised by respondents, the petitioners filed a motion seeking leave to amend the petition for incorporating the facts that resumption of land was sought by Moti Ram-grandfather of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 who happened to be brother of Shiv Ram. Though Jaru was natural father of Prithi Singh, Mst. Putti widow of Shiv Ram had adopted Prithi Singh which is evidenced by the adoption deed dated 29.04.1968. That mutation of inheritance of Mst. Putti came to be attested in favour of Prithi Singh and upon the death of Prithi Singh, his estate devolved upon petitioners and two daughters namely Sunita Devi and Rajni Kotwal. It is further submitted that out of the land devolving upon Prithi Singh, land measuring 01 kanals 15 marlas was acquired and final award made on 26.08.2009, in terms whereof compensation to the tune of Rs. 5.29 lacs was sanctioned in favour of Prithi Singh. Petitioners want to incorporate the facts relating to disqualification of Moti Ram to resume land on the ground that he was already having 40 kanalas 02 marlas land and after kharief 1971 the land had been transferred by him in violation of provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act. Petitioners further want to incorporate the fact that 07 kanals and 19 marlas of land stood recorded in personal cultivation of Prithi Singh in kharief 1971. It is further averred in the motion that the impugned mutation orders are adversely affecting the rights of petitioners and they have locus standi to challenge the same. Petitioners further seek to incorporate the ground that personal cultivation of Moti Ram is deemed to be the personal cultivation of his brother Shiv Ram, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and order of resumption in favour of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 is not legally permissible in as much as petitioners are co-owners of respondent Nos. 5 & 6.