Asha vs Rasaloo and Others

Bilal Nazki, J.—The Circle Officer, Circle No. 2, Hiranagar passed an order on 28-11-1973 on Mutatipn No. 406 regarding correction of

girdawari entries with respect to land comprised under Survey No, 460 of village Hamirpur pertaining to the year 1971. The said order was

assailed in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, who accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to Circle Officer, Circle No.

2, Tehsil Hiranagar. The order of Deputy Commissioner was challenged in second appeal before the Financial Commissioner, when it was

transferred in terms of Section 21(5) of the J. & K. Agrarian Reforms Act to the Revenue Minister on 12-11-1979. Thereafter, on 3-7-1986 the

case was transferred to J. & K. Special Tribunal for adjudication. The second appeal was treated as revision by the Tribunal in terms of mandate

of Section 21 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act.

1 have gone through the memo of second appeal which was originally presented before the Financial Commissioner, J. & K. The grounds taken

therein were basically on the appreciation of evidence. One of the grounds which could have been entertained in the revision was that the appeal

filed before the Deputy Commissioner was time barred, and the appellant in his appeal before the Financial Commissioner had submitted that

without a valid reason the question of ' limitation was not considered by the Deputy Commissioner. I have also gone through the order of the

Deputy Commissioner, who has stated in his order that the appellant before him had preferred the appeal on 26-2-1974. although the impugned

order before him had been passed on 28-11-1973. As such, there was a delay of more than thirty days in filing the appeal. The learned Collector

(Deputy Commissioner) found that the appeal had been filed in a Civil Court, when the Agrarian Reforms Act had been just passed. Therefore, he

held that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act were attracted, because the appellant before him had committed a bona fide mistake of

filing the appeal in a wrong forum. Even the Civil Court had entertained the appeal on wrong notions, therefore, the learned Collector (DC)

condoned the delay, accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to Circle Officer. By remanding the case back, he did not decide the inter

se interests of the parties.

In the second appeal, as has beer already pointed out hereinabove, a plea was taken that the first appeal should not have been entertained as it

was time barred. The Special Tribunal has held that the appeal was time barred. In addition to that"" the Tribunal has also appreciated the evidence

and justified the order passed by the Circle Officer/-Tehsildar.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the"" record of the case. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, this Court has limited scope in going into the matter and confine itself to examine whether the Tribunal has gone wrong while interpreting

or implementing any provisions of law. Sub-section(5) of Section 21 of the J. & K. Agrarian Reforms Act, makes it clear that the second appeal

which was pending before the Financar Commissioner, was transferable to the Revenue Minister when the said Act came into being, and the

second appeal had to be treated as a revision. The Tribunal had become a successor to the Revenue Minister, and accordingly, the Tribunal had to

treat the second appeal as a revision. The parameters for entertaining a revision as laid down in Sub-Section (2) of Section 21 of the J. & K.

Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 are, as under:

The Revenue Minister may at any time call for the record of any case in which a Tehsildar or an Assistant Commissioner has passed orders in

respect of any evacuees land or State land or of any case in which Commissioner has passed final order and if he finds that a question of law or

public interest is involved in the case, he may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit.

From a bare perusal of the said provision of law, it becomes clear that the Revenue Minister can entertain a revision against an order, of

Tehsildar or an Assistant Commissioner in respect of lands; which are either evacuees land or State land. He can also entertain a revision, in which

Commissioner has passed final order and if the Revenue Minister (now Tribunal) finds that a question of law or public interest is involved in the

case. Analysing the present case on the touch stone of Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the J. & K. Agrarian Reforms Act, it becomes clear that

the second appeal which was transferred to the Special Tribunal, could not have been entertained as a revision at all. Neither the order of Assistant

Commissioner or of Tehsildar passed in respect of evacuees land or State land had been challenged before it, nor there was an order passed by

the Commissioner, which had raised question of law or public interest. The order impugned had been passed by the Collector (DC) not with

respect to any land which was evacuees land or State land. Therefore, the revision was not maintainable at all. On this simple ground the second

appeal which had been transferred to the Tribunal was not entertainable as a revision at all, as it did not fell within the parameters laid down under

Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act, this petition merits to be accepted. Therefore, I allow this writ petition, quash the order passed by the

Tribunal and restore the order of the Collector (Deputy Commissioner) dt. 14-11-74. The case as such stands transferred and remanded back to

the Tehsildar/ Circle Officer, Circle No. 2, Hiranagar, for conducting a fresh enquiry into the matter, and for passing appropriate orders thereafter.

This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.