TAHIRA SHAFI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated petitionerâ„¢s case is that way back in 2001 he approached respondent No. 3 for purchase of proprietary land measuring 1 kanal situate at Iqbal Abad Srinagar, under survey Nos. 621 and 627 and after his agreement to sell the land paid him an amount of Rs. 6,99,000/ - vide cheque No. 0950378 dated 31st March 2001 against the agreed sale price of Rs. 9,20,000/ - while remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed for which the sanction requisite under Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 was required. One Ab. Qayoom, however objected to the agreement where upon they learnt that respondents 6, 7 and 8 had forged certain documents like power of attorney and relinquishment deed etc., in effect whereof the ownership rights in said land were claimed to have been vested in respondent no. 8. Aggrieved thereby, he has instituted this writ petition for quashment of sale permission purporting to have been given by Divisional Commissioner on 18th Sept. 2003 along with subsequent conveyance comprising of relinquishment deed etc., details whereof would follow in due course.

(2.) IN reply respondent no. 6 to 8 have pleaded that after agreeing upon transfer of land in favour of respondent no. 6, 3rd respondent the original owner executed an Irrevocable power of attorney in his favour on 2.7.2006 empowering him among other things to apply for alienation permission under the Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997. He applied for the same which was issued by Divisional Commissioner under his No. Div.Com/relief/MR -2576/2003 dated 18.09.2003 read with corrigendum dated 7th Jan. 2004 subsequent whereto respondent no. 6 executed a relinquishment deed on 6th Jan. 2004 on behalf of respondent no. 3 in favour of respondent no. 7 which was witnesses by mutation No. 8296 of 2004 dated 23.02.2004 also. The said respondent no. 7 sold 14 marlas out of said land to respondent No. 8 under a sale deed executed on 29.09.2005 and registered on 8.10.2005 handing over possession, to her, which was followed by mutation No. 9162 attested on 5.11.2005 in her favour. It is further pleaded that all through the respondents no. 3 to 5 did not object to any part of aforesaid transaction because they had already received the consideration amount and as such the petitionerâ„¢s case and claim was totally unfounded.

(3.) FROM their side respondents No. 3 to 5 have filed their reply through post which has been received in the Registry and forms a part of the record wherein while admitting receipt of Bank draft of Rs. 99,000/ - and cheque for Rs. 6/ - lacs from them they have declined having ever agreed to sell the land to petitioners or executed any document in their favour. Similar is their stand against respondent 6 to 8 also according to which they deny execution of power of attorney attributed by them to respondent no. 3 regarding which they claim to have lodged a complaint with crime branch also. In their response to aforesaid reply of respondents 3 to 5, the petitioners have through supplementary affidavit explained that respondent no. 3 has executed power of attorney in favour of his son, respondent no. 5, whereafter under declaration deed executed by respondent no. 4 his wife, respondent no. 3 received an amount of Rs. 7/ - lac from them, as sale price of the land in question which was later raised to 9.20 lacs and have insisted that their stand to the contrary is belied by documents on record. During course of submissions learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondents 4 to 8 have mainly reiterated the contents of their pleadings with reference to annexures on record, while none has appeared on behalf of respondents 3 to 5. State and its functionaries though represented by Mr. M.A. Rathore, has not taken any stand in the matter.