AHMAD BHAT Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent, writ Petitioner, approached the Writ Court challenging an order passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Camp Srinagar, whereby and under the Tribunal reversed the order of Joint Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms as also of the Tehsildar, and restored the mutation which stood prior to the order of the Tehsildar. The writ petition has been allowed by the judgment and order under appeal, in consequence whereof the order of the Tehsildar as well as the order of the Joint Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms became alive.

(2.) BY order of the Tehsildar, request made by the Respondent, writ Petitioner, to mutate a plot of land in his favour was accepted, principally, upon placing reliance on affidavits produced by the Respondent, writ Petitioner. Those affidavits were said to have contained marks of the Appellants. Those were said to have been produced before the Appellants, who looked into the same and did not object to their marks thereon but, at the same time, made known to the Tehsildar that there are still some disputes inter se the Respondent, writ Petitioner, on the one hand and the Appellants on the other, and, accordingly, sought adjournment. The Tehsildar granted such adjournment and, thereupon, the Appellants fought before the Tehsildar. Ultimately, the Tehsildar accepted the request made by the Respondent, writ Petitioner, only on the admission of the Appellants contained in those affidavits and, accordingly, directed for mutating the name of Respondent, writ Petitioner, in place and instead of the Appellants in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. The Appellants, thereupon, approached the Joint Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms by preferring a statutory appeal. The Joint Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms dismissed the said appeal holding that the order assailed before him was a consent order and, accordingly, no appeal lies before him.

(3.) AN ordinary decree and a consent decree are quite different in their character. A decree is the result of the adjudication made by a court. A consent decree is acceptance by the court of the compromise made by the parties to the suit. When the parties to the suit have led the court to believe that they have compromised their disputes in the manner they have represented before the court and have obtained the seal of the court thereon, by law they have been prevented from preferring an appeal against such decree, for, such an appeal would be against public policy. When the court passes a decree upon adjudicating the disputes before it, it may correctly adjudicate the disputes or may not to do so and, accordingly, the Statute authorizes the aggrieved party to prefer an appeal. There are provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure for passing a judgment upon admission. The moment a judgment is rendered upon admission, the same results in a decree. Whether an admission has been made, which could authorize the court to pass a judgment is again a matter which can be disputed. It may be said that the ingredients of admission, upon which the court has place reliance to pronounce the decree, are, in fact, not there, or the court while passing the judgment, has dissected the admission and has taken into account that part of the admission which is suitable to the Plaintiff and rejected that part of the admission which is not suitable to the Plaintiff. Therefore, when a decree is passed on admission by a court, the same is a pronouncement upon adjudication of a matter before the court. An appeal squarely lies against such a decree where it is open to the person aggrieved to point out that either there was no admission or that the admission was with conditions imposed and, accordingly, by dissecting the conditions no decree could be passed. This is the settled law of this Country for the last 150 years.