ASHA Vs. RASALOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Circle Officer, Circle No. 2, Hiranagar passed an order on 28-11-1973 on Mutation No. 406 regarding correction of girdawari entries with respect to land comprised under Survey No. 460 of village Hamirpur pertaining to the year 1971. The said order was assailed in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, who accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to Circle Officer, Circle No. 2, Tehsil Hiranagar. The order of Deputy Commissioner was challenged in second appeal before the Financial Commissioner, when it was transferred in terms of S. 21(5) of the J. and K. Agrarian Reforms Act to the Revenue Minister on 12-11-1979. Thereafter, on 3-7-1986 the case was transferred to J. and K. Special Tribunal for adjudication. The second appeal was treated as revision by the Tribunal in terms of mandate of S. 21 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act.

(2.) I have gone through the memo of second appeal which was originally presented before the Financial Commissioner, J. and K. The grounds taken therein were basically on the appreciation of evidence. One of the grounds which could have been entertained in the revision was that the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner was time barred, and the appellant in his appeal before the Financial Commissioner had submitted that without a valid reason the question of limitation was not considered by the Deputy Commissioner. I have also gone through the order of the Deputy Commissioner, who has stated in his order that the appellant before him had preferred the appeal on 26-2-1974 although the impugned order before him had been passed on 28-11-1973. As such, there was a delay of more than thirty days in filing the appeal. The learned Collector (Deputy Commissioner) found that the appeal had been filed in a Civil Court, when the Agrarian Reforms Act, had been just passed. Therefore, he held that the provisions of S. 14 of the Limitation Act were attracted, because the appellant before him had committed a bona fide mistake of filing the appeal in a wrong forum. Even the Civil Court had entertained the appeal on wrong notions, therefore, the learned Colleector (DC) condoned the delay accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to Circle Officer. By remanding the case back, he did not decide the inter se interests of the parties.

(3.) In the second appeal, as has been already pointed out hereinabove, a plea was taken that the first appeal should not have been entertained as it was time barred. The Special Tribunal has held that the appeal was time barred. In addition to that the Tribunal has also appreciated the evidence and justified the order passed by the Circle Officer/ Tehsildar.