STATE TIMES NEWS JAMMU: J&K High Court on Wednesday directed ACR Jammu to fix responsibility of erring officials of J&K Revenue Department, who were allegedly in connivance with petitioner in illegal possession of land. In a petition filed by one Prem Singh challenging communication dated July 4, 2020, issued by respondent No.6 and addressed to respondent No.4, whereby request has been made to the later to ensure presence of concerned Tehsildar along with revenue officials and police force to avoid any objection or resistance from local people for acquiring land for construction of a Receiving Station at Greater Kailash under Central Sponsored Scheme PMDP Urban and Certificate dated July 6, 2020, whereby PDD authorities claimed to have taken over the possession of State land measuring 2 Kanals falling in Khasra No.96 in Village Chowadhi for construction of Receiving Station and communication of respondent No.5 dated June 25, 2019, addressed to respondent No.4, whereby the former has certified with reference to revenue documents, that the land measuring 2 Kanals each falling under Khasra No.96 and 1328 situated at Village Chowadhi is State land. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, after hearing both sides, observed that it was seen that before the Court there are two versions of mutation No.272 dated June 8, 1957, one placed on record by petitioner and another relied upon and placed on record by respondents No.1 to 5 and 8 along with their objections filed through S S Nanda, Senior Additional Advocate General. “In given facts and circumstances, it is, however, difficult for this Court to believe one version and ignore the other. This makes the task of the Court not only difficult but very complicated. However, without going into this aspect of the matter, I would like to address the controversy on basis of facts which are indisputable and with regard to which the parties are at ad idem,” he added. Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that admittedly and indisputably, in 2007, when J&K Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Svt. 2007 (1950 AD) (hereinafter ‘the Act of Svt. 2007’ for short), the recorded position of subject land was that it was in ownership of State with Balak Ram, Santokh Singh and Daleep Singh, in equal shares, as ‘Maroosi Hissadaran’ recorded in tenancy/ cultivation column. The Act of Svt 2007, it needs to be emphasized, was promulgated by Shri Yuvaraj under Section 5 of Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act 1996, on 1st of Kartik 2007, with a view to achieving the objective of abolition of big landed estates of the proprietors and to transfer the land held by them to the actual tillers. The Act of Svt 2007 was the first milestone towards agrarian reforms set in motion by the then Shri Yuvaraj. Under Section 4 of Act of Svt. 2007, the right of ownership held by a proprietor in land other than the land mentioned in sub-section (2) shall extinguish and cease to vest in him from the date of coming into force of the Act. Reference to sub-section (2) would make it abundantly clear that with the promulgation of the Act of Svt. 2007, a landlord was not permitted to hold land in ownership beyond 182 Kanals. Such land as exceeded the aforesaid ceiling limit vested in the State and the ownership rights of the land were extinguished. If this land, which, by operation of law, vests in the State, was in actual cultivating possession of tiller in Kharief, 2007, same was to be transferred to such tiller to the extent of his actual possession provided the land so transferred along with land which he owned did not exceed 160 Kanals in ownership right. There is, thus, found no provision in Act of Svt. 2007, which would provide for the occupancy tenants to retain their occupancy rights even qua the land that vested in the State by operation of Section 4 of Act. As a matter of fact, the occupancy tenants were also granted ownership rights qua the land that vested in the State by operation of Section 4 with extinguishment of ownership rights of landlord though to a limited extent as prescribed in Section 5(6)(1) of the Act of Svt. 2007. Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that viewed from this angle, one would tend to believe the document of mutation i.e., mutation No.272 dated June 8, 1957, placed on record by the respondents. A perusal of mutation No.272 (supra) placed on record by Nanda, Sr. AAG, makes it abundantly clear that ownership rights of erstwhile owners, namely, Dharmoo and others, were extinguished in terms of mutation No.328 and the tenants, namely, Balak Ram and others, were provided opportunity to establish their claim. On enquiry, it was found that the subject land in Kharief, 2007 (BK) was recorded in personal cultivation of tenants i.e., Balak Ram and others but the same could not be transferred in their favour because the ownership land possessed by Balak Ram and others was found to be more than 182 Kanals i.e. much beyond the ceiling limit prescribed under Section 5(6) of the Act of Svt. 2007. It is because of this reason, no ownership rights qua the land measuring 36 Kanals and 8 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos.486, 487 and 96, could be conferred on Balak Ram and others, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that be that as it is, it appears that though the ancestors of the petitioner were not found entitled to conferment of ownership rights but there was no specific order by any competent authority determining their occupancy rights. Undoubtedly, the necessary consequence of not finding the occupancy tenants like Balak Ram, father of the petitioner, entitled to any ownership rights qua the land vested in the State by operation of Section 4, was the termination of occupancy tenancy. It appears that since there was no formal order of termination of occupancy rights of Balak Rama and others and there was no process undertaken to evict them, they continued to remain in possession and were recorded in the tenancy column from time to time. Sometimes they were recorded as tenants in cultivating possession simpliciter and on some occasions they were recorded as ‘Maroosi’ i.e., occupancy tenants. Admittedly, on the date the respondents decided to take over possession of 2 Kanals of land out of Khasra No.96 for construction of some Receiving Station, the recorded position in the revenue records was that the petitioner was an occupancy tenant in cultivating possession of the subject land. I have not been able to find out nor could Nanda point out that any remedial measures were taken by the competent authorities to set the record straight and to correct the Girdawari and Jamabandi entries etc recorded in favour of the petitioner. Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that having a ringside appraisal of the whole issue and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be fastened with the whole blame. The mess, as it appears, is the result of inefficiency of the revenue officers concerned. The unholy alliance between petitioner and the revenue officials concerned also cannot be ruled out, Justice Sanjeev Kumar said. Be that as it is, the fact remains that the petitioner and before him his ancestors should have been evicted from the subject land right in the year 1950 or at least when mutation No.272 of 1957 was attested. That, however, did not happen and the petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest continued to be in cultivating possession of the subject land as occupancy tenants and this position is clearly reflected in the revenue records and is corroborated by the stand of official respondents. It has also been brought to my notice that the subject land has already been taken over by Power Development Department and the construction of Receiving Station has been going on ever since. This also makes the issue fait accompli, Court said. With these observations, Court disposed of the petition with direction that the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Jammu, along with Tehsildar Bahu, shall conduct an in-depth enquiry in the matter in the light of observations made hereinabove in the judgment and the referred provisions of the Act of Svt. 2007, as also other applicable provisions of law and shall make recommendations to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. Court further directed that the Committee of Revenue Officers aforesaid, which is entrusted the job of holding enquiry, shall in particular find out the reasons and circumstances under which the petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest continued to remain in possession of the land even after attestation of mutation No.272 dated June 8, 1957. The Committee shall also find out as to how petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest remained in cultivating possession of the land when in terms of mutation No.272 of 1957 they had ceased, in law, to be the occupancy tenants. The Committee also find out as to why and how different entries in the tenancy column came to be made from time to time by the revenue officers and, if possible, identify the officers responsible for the lapse, if any.
