GULABA CHAND Vs. UT OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Sh. Anantu was the owner of 26 Kanal 2 Marlas of land (13 Kanal 12 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 584 min and 12 Kanal 10 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 619/585 min) situated at village Dandote, Tehsil and District Udhampur. During his lifetime, he had executed one will on 20/2/1978, thereby transferring the land measuring 26 Kanal 2 Marlas in favour of Pyar Chand. Anantu died in the year 1985 leaving behind his wife, namely-Mst. Kesri and two daughters, namely-Shankari and Shanti, as his legal heirs. Pyar Chand executed a lease dtd. 14/10/1992 in respect of the above-mentioned land in favour of father of the petitioners, namely, Paras Ram. One daughter of deceased Anantu, namely, Mst. Shanti i.e. respondent No.4 filed a suit thereby challenging the will deed dtd. 20/2/1978 and also the lease deed dtd. 14/10/1992. Learned Munsiff, Udhampur vide its ex-parte judgment dtd. 31/7/1995 decreed the suit and declared the will deed as well as the consequent lease deed, as null and void, but did not grant the consequential relief of eviction of Paras Ram sought by the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 filed a suit for restoration of possession before the Assistant Revenue Commissioner (Assistant Settlement Officer), Udhampur under Sec. 27/19(3)(d) of Agrarian Reforms Act, for the land mentioned above and vide order dtd. 12/7/2016, the suit was dismissed with a direction that the land is liable to be escheated back to the State and the petitioners were allowed to remain in possession of the land. Being aggrieved of the order dtd. 12/7/2016, the respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur and vide order dtd. 28/3/2018, the appeal was accepted and the order passed by the Assistant Revenue Commissioner (Assistant Settlement Officer) Udhampur was set aside. It was held that the respondent No. 4 was entitled for restoration of the land to the extent of her inherited share in the said property. Being aggrieved of the order dtd. 28/3/2018 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, however, the same was dismissed vide order dtd. 1/5/2024.

(2.) The petitioners have now approached this Court through the medium of instant petition and have sought quashing of order dtd. 1/5/2024 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu and order dtd. 28/3/2018 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur on the following grounds:

(3.) The contesting respondent i.e. respondent No. 4 has objected to the petition by stating the factual aspects of the case. It is stated that a mutation dtd. 16/10/1986 came to be attested in favour of Pyar Chand on the basis of alleged will executed by late Anantu in his favour. The mutation was subsequently set aside by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the matter was remanded to Tehsildar, Udhampur for de-novo enquiry, who accordingly attested the mutation of inheritance in favour of his legal heirs. Pyar Chand and Shankari Devi under the garb of the said mutation disposed of 52 Kanals of land out of 60 Kanals of land in favour of the petitioners on the basis of Pattanama and handed over the possession to them in order to defeat the rights of the answering respondent being the successor of late Anantu. It is further stated that the respondent No. 4 challenged the will in respect of the land measuring 26 Kanal 7 Marlas and also sought eviction of the petitioners, but the relief of eviction was refused to her. Thereafter, she filed a suit. It is further stated that admittedly, the answering respondent is the daughter of Anantu and is entitled to inherit 2/3rd share out of the total estate, because her mother late Kesri had executed a will in her favour and accordingly mutation No. 560 dtd. 15/2/2002 was attested in favour of the answering respondent. It is stated that the petitioners in fact are unauthorised occupants of the land owned by the answering respondent, as the lease deed/Pattanama was executed by the person who was not competent to do so.