VIDAYA DHAR Vs. REVENUE MINISTER, J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition for quashing order of respondent No.1 dated January 19,1982 whereby he has set aside the order passed by the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner on December 12,1979 and remanded the case to Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms, Udham -pur for denovo enquiry and orders. Petitioners case is that his land in khasra No.560/28 situate in village Kawa, Tehsil Udhampur, was faired by the Collector Land Acquisition, Udhampur, in the year 1973 and left put land measuring 4 -K 5 -M, however, continued to be in his ownership and possession. With the coming into being of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 Circle Officer, Udhampur conducted an enquiry in connection with the verification of revenue entries pertaining to the said land in a slip -shod manner he attested mutation No. 497 dated 29.9.1974 holding respondents 2 to 4 as tenenfs and consequently corrected the entries in the khasra girdwari from khaiif 1971 onwards. He aggrieved by the abovesaid order of the Circle Officter filed an appeal before Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur but with the enforcement of the abovesaid Act appeal was transferred to Agrarian Reforms Commissioner. During the pendency of appeal he placed on record, the agreements executed by respondents 2 to 4 in his favour, execution of which as admitted by the respondents before the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner. Respondents also did not object to the production of said documents and in fact sought to place reliance on the same to sustain their version that the said documents created tenancy in their favour. Agrarian Reforms Commissioner on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case accepted the appeal and held him to be in possession of the land. Petitioners further case is that the Revenue Minister, respondent No.1, in revision was not right in holding that the production of documents was illegal and respondents were entitled to rebut the same. Question of leading any rebuttal to the documents, existence of which was admitted, did not arise, particularly when no evidence in rebuttal could have been adduced to add, alter or amend the terms of the agreement which was the best evidence in itself about the facts stated in it. Moreover, the entries in khasra girdawari would show that the land in question continued in personal cultivation of the petitioner since 1973. A substantial part of the land in question had already been acquired by the Government but the Circle Officer directed the dents 2 to 4 to be entered in possession of the land from 1972 to kharif 1974. Revenue Ministers order setting aside the passed by the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner was wholly besides being totally illefial and without jurisdiction afidavit fundamental rights as also the statutory rights.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 2 to 5 filed their counter submitting that they were cultivating the land in question as tenants of the petitioner and this fact having been proved during enquiry held by the Circle Officer on mutation No.497 dated. 22.9.1974 was attested by him. So called agreements alleged to have bcfen executed by them in favour of the petitioner were neither produced before the Circle Officer nor placed on record before the appellate Court, They also did not admit execution of the agreements and the Agrarian Commissioner intentionally recorded their admission and thus he drew anr erroneous conclusion about their being hired labourers. It has further been averred by them in the counter that the Revenue Minister while exercising revisional jurisdiction properly decided the questions of law involved in the case,

(3.) IN rejoinder petitioner denied the allegations of respondents 2to 5 and regarding production of agreements in question he stated that the same were produced before the Circle Officer also but he did not centertain the same. In appeal he enclosed photostat copies of the agreements and at the time of arguments be produced original agreements which were put to the respondents and their counsel and were admitted to be true and correct by them.