JAGAN NATH Vs. REVENUE MINISTER, J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated January 13, 1973 of respondent No. 1 (Revenue Minister of J & K State). The short facts which led to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are as follows: Parmanand, the father of the present petitioner, Jagan Nath, was a big land holder and held land in village Kotli Mian Fateh, Tehsil R. S. Pura and also in villages Chorli Tehsil R. S. Pura and village Nowabad Tehsil Jammu. On the promulgation of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act., 2007 he selected a few pieces of land situated in village Chorli and Nowabad vide an application which he addressed to the concerned Revenue Officer on 20th Katak, 2007, as he being a big landlord had to select pieces of land upto the extent of 182kanals for his own use and occupation. It appears that afterwards the father of the petitioner changed his mind and allegedly made another application selecting for himself and for his family pieces of land situated in village Kotli Mian Fateh. The respondents 2 & 3 who were in the possession of these pieces of land as tillers resisted this application of the father of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners father having once selected pieces of land for his own use and cultivation could not later change his mind in law and therefore, he could not get the possession of the pieces of land situated in village Kotli Mian Fateh. While the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 2 & 3 was going on, a partition suit appears to have been filed by Parmanand in the High Court and a consent decree obtained in that suit according to which the land in dispute situated in village Kotli Mian Fateh was shown as to have fallen to the share of the petitioner. On the basis of this consent decree the petitioner approached the Revenue Officers and the Tehsildar acting on the decree, mutated a piece of land measuring 40 kanals situated in village Kotli Mian Fateh in favour of the petitioner vide mutation No. 287. The respondents 2 and 3 having come to know about this filed an appeal against this mutation before the Collector who dismissed the same declaring that the appeal was barred by limitation. The respondents 2 & 3 then preferred a revision against the order of the Collector before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu who also dismissed the revision on the ground that the same also was time barred. The respondents 2 & 3 then took the matter to the Financial Commissioner who also vide his order dated February 7, 1970 dismissed the revision. After having failed to obtain redress from these revenue officers, the respondents 2 & 3 went in further revision before the respondent No.1, the Revenue Minister who vide his order dated January 30, 1973 accepted the revision and directed that the land in question be mutated in favour of the respondents 2 & 3 as owners thereof. It was against this order that the present writ petition has been field on the grounds that the order of the respondent No. l was without jurisdiction; that it was ultra vires of the provisions of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act and also on the ground that the respondents 2 & 3 having accepted the petitioners father as their landlord in terms of the amended claim, they were estopped from challenging the mutation No. 287. It was also stated that as the impugned order was appealable and no appeal was filed within the limitation, the order had become final and could not be set aside in revision after thirteen years.

(2.) THE respondents 2 and 3 chose to remain absent in this court but respondent No. 1 has appeared through Mr. R. P, Sethi who has submitted his objections to the petition. In these he has stated that the father of the petitioner filed a selection of the unit of 182 kanals of land on 20th Katak, 2007 and by this selection, the father of the petitioner selected pieces of land from villages Chorli, Tehsil R. S. Pura and Nowabad, Tehsil Jammu. The father of the petitioner did not include in his selected unit any piece of land whatsoever situated in Kotli Mian Fateh and owned by him. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has denied that by virtue of any subsequent declaration with regard to the change in selection of pieces of land the disputed land was ever selected by the father of the petitioner or even by the petitioner. Further the petition has been resisted by Mr. Sethi on the ground that the provisions of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act override the provisions of other laws and any litigation between the parties would not affect their respective rights created or extinguished or limited under the above named Act. It was his contention that the decree of the High Court ordering the partitioning of the land between the petitioner, his father and his other brothers was a matter which would not effect the provisions of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act and that it was a matter between the petitioner on the one hand and his co -owners on the other and would not as such effect the respondents.

(3.) IN arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner laid much stress on the point that the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and as such the order passed was ultra vires the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act and therefore had no force in law and must be set aside. His contention was that by virtue of sub -section 6 of Section 30 of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, the Government, in this case the Revenue Minister, could call for the record of the case and pass such orders thereon as it or he thinks fit only when the case decided by the Financial Commissioner involved a substantial question of law or a question of public interest. He, in consequence, argued that the matter in dispute was entirely between two private parties and as such no question of public interest was involved nor according to him it was shown that a substantial question of law had to be determind by the Revenue Minister that could give him the requisite jurisdiction. In support of his contention he has submitted an attested copy of a letters Patent Appeal which was No. 19 of 1971 decided by a Division Bench of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the said letters Patent Appeal, the High Court had clearly laid down that unless a substantial question of law was involved, the Revenue Minister would not be said to possess the requisite jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against the orders of the Financial Commissioner.