MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint lodged on 13.12.2002 before the Chairman, Commission of Inquiries (State Subject Certificates), (Commission for short), alleging issuance of the Permanent Resident Certificates favoring the petitioners by practicing fraud, sought to be founded on the statement made before the Assistant Commissioner Jammu, by father namely Shri Dharmu S/o Shri Jagu, of the petitioners 1, 2 & 5 and grandfather of rest of the petitioners, besides his (Shri Dharmus) deposition claiming to be a resident of Pakistan, having no landed estate in the State of Jammu and Kashmir supported by revenue record viz. Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi was enquired into and clinched by a recommendation of the Commission dated 13 -08 -2009, impugned herein. The recommendation of the Commission is also based on the factual assertion depicting that the said Shri Dharmu was engaged as a labourer by the, respondent No.5, Dr. Sarabjit Singh. Needless to say that these facts are not narrated by me to record seal of approval thereof but to understand the controversy which, essentially, owes its origin to the claim of tenancy staked by the petitioners in respect of the land Belonging to Shri S.Hargovind Singh, father of the respondent No.5, consequently, a mutation u/s 446 of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 (Act for short) involving land measuring 22 kanals 13 marlas (17 kanals 3 marlas under Khasra No. 599 and 5 kanals 10 marlas under Khasra No. 605) situate at Badrore Tehsil & District Jammu which had become subject matter of an appeal before the Joint Agrarian Commissioner, the Appellate Authority under the Act. Appeal was allowed and mutation was set aside by order dated 17 -02 -2000, the proceedings whereof are still pending but the same need not detain me, reason being that the said proceedings are not the subject matter of the writ petition on hand as is evidenced by the relief clause itself which may be noticed:

(2.) RELIEF prayed for reveals that it is the recommendation of the Commission dated 13 -08 -2009, the petitioners are aggrieved of. Alongside the writ petition, an application for interim relief was also filed, consideration whereof has begotten an ad interim direction dated 09 -10 -2009 favoring the petitioners, which is sought to be set aside by the respondent No.5 by medium of CMP 1566/09, to which Mr. Vazir, learned counsel for the petitioners is averse, therefore, main matter is taken up for consideration for admission. To succeed in the petition, Mr. Vazir has restricted the challenge to the last but one para of the recommendation which, according to him, mandates the Deputy Commissioner (DC) Jammu to identify the property, if any, acquired by the petitioners or by any member of their family on the basis of fake Permanent Resident Certificates to be confiscated and escheated to the Government. If it is taken as a commandment, Mr. Vazir has an argument to be built upon but if it is a recommendation, then it is for the appropriate authority to take a decision. Going by the phraseology employed by the Commission, it is crystal clear that the Commission has made a recommendation to the Government to ask the DC Jammu to confiscate and escheat the property to the Government, which may or may not be accepted by the Government. The expression being recommendatory in character, appropriate course for the petitioners would be to approach the Government. Suffice it to say that the writ petition is premature because the recommendation has not been accepted by the Government as yet. Needless to say that in case recommendation is accepted by the Government, nothing prevents the petitioners to invoke appropriate remedy, of course, subject to availability of cause. Disposed of along with all connected CMPs. Interim direction is vacated.