NAZIRA BEGUM Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of the instant petition filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of Writ of Mandamus for commanding upon the official respondent No.2 i.e. Sub- Registrar (Additional Deputy Commissioner, Awantipora) to register the sale deed pending disposal in his office and executed between him i.e. the petitioner/vendee and the respondent No.3/vendor (through attorney holder- Ghulam Mohd. Makroo Lt. S/o Mohammad Shaban Makroo R/o Jawberara Tehsil Awantipora District Pulwama) in respect of the landed Estate measuring 04 Kanals falling under survey No.268 Min situated at Revenue Estate Jawberara Tehsil Awantipora District Pulwama, already permitted vide order No.76/DIVK of 2025 dtd. 7/8/2025 of the learned Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, in accordance with the law.

(2.) The case of the petitioner/vendee as projected through the medium of the instant petition is that she is permanent resident of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and a citizen of India, thus entitled to the protection of her fundamental and other legal rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, as also under other laws framed thereunder. That some years ago, the private respondent No.3 a Kashmiri migrant being the actual resident of Jawbrara Tehsil, Awantipora District Pulwama A/P House No.105, Purani Mandi, Jammu disclosed his intention Sell his land measuring 04 Kanals falling under survey No.268 min situated at Estate Jawbrara Tehsil Awantipora District, Pulwama (hereinafter referred to as the 'Subject Land' for short) and the petitioner/vendee agreed to purchase the same. That in furtherance of their desire, they executed an agreement to sell and other relevant documents, including the power of attorney by the respondent No.3/vendor, so as to facilitate the execution and registration of the formal sale deed in respect of the subject land. That the respondent No.3/vendor through his attorney holder- Ghulam Mohammed Makroo applied to the office of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir in terms of the provision of Sec. 3 of Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Migrant Act' for short) for the requisite permission in connection with the sale of the subject land. That the requisite permission was granted by the learned Divisional Commissioner on the basis of revenue field agency report and revenue extracts vide order No.76/DIVK of 2025 dtd. 7/8/2025. That thereafter, the parties executed a formal sale deed in respect of the subject land and presented the same in the office of the respondent No.2 for the registration thereof. That however, the respondent No.2 has kept the document pending in his office without addressing the same in accordance with the law governing the field, which has been causing great prejudice and hardship to both the parties. That actually, upon execution of the agreement to sell between the parties as also of the irrevocable general Power of Attorney by the respondent No.3/vendor in favour of his attorney holder-Ghulam Mohammad Makroo, being the father of the petitioner/vendee, a structure came to be erected in good faith by the petitioner/vendee on the subject land. That the respondent No.2 has been delaying the registration of the document on the main ground that the structure existing on the subject land is not included in the permission Order dtd. 7/8/2025 issued by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir. That the respondent No.2 despite being submitted and clarified that the structure did not belong to the respondent No.3/vendor and instead was raised by the petitioner in good faith after execution of the agreement to sell and settlement of other terms and conditions way back in the year 2024, still remained adamant on the aforesaid issue. That the learned Sub-Registrar concerned even required the petitioner/vendee to get the valuation of the structure done for payment of stamp duty and registration fees on the said amount, which also was done by the petitioner under compelling circumstances. That the respondent No.2 has still slept over the matter, by not addressing the document of sale deed in accordance with the law.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/vendee and the respondent No.3/vendor in respect of the matter.