Mohan Lal & Others vs State of J & K

It is all about shop NO.1142 which along with other shop No. 1143 existed on plot Nos. 32 & 33 (Nazool land) covering an area of 587 sq. ft.

situate at Gumat Bazar, Jammu, leased out to one Narain Dass. After his death, 301 sq. of land was transferred to his son Inderjit Singh who sold

both the shops to private respondents 3 & 4 herein. This was treated to be a violation of rule 7(c) of the Land Grant Rules, 1960. Accordingly

case for determination of lease was examined and the land resumed vide Govt. Order No. Rev139 of 1975 dated 6.3.1975. Pursuant thereto

petitioners and private respdt No. 4 herein were put on an eviction notice under Sec. 5 of the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act. It was in or around, this time that petitioners sought regularisation of this land in their favour either on lease basis or in ownership

rights as per the provisions of Govt. Order No. Rev (NDJ) 46 of 1973 dated 28.;1.1973. Accordingly Govt. Order No. Rev (NDJ) 137 of 1979

dated 19.6.1979 was passed conferring ownership rights on the petitioners on payment of Rs. 50,000 per kanal plus 25 percent as penalty.

Pursuant thereto they were requred to deposit Rs. 6.750.50 which they did on 9.1.1980 and the mutations in respect of the shops were attested in

their favour.

Private respondents 3 & 4 felt aggrieved of this and filed a review petition before the Minister concerned which remained reportedly pending for

about 6 years till it was transferred to the Special Tribunal and was disposed of by order dated 4.6.1987 whereby Govt. Order No. Rev138 of

1979 dated 19.6.1979 was modified to provide for incorporation of the name of private respondent No, 3 in substitution of the petitioners in

respect of shop No. 1142 (plot No. 32). Petitioners question this order on thesole plea that the impugned order suffers from the lack of jurisdiction

in as much as the Tribunal was not competent to review Govt. Order No. Rev138 of 1979 (supra) whereby ownership rights of the land and

shops were conferred on them. It is submitted that the aforesaid Govt. Order was passed under the Land Grants Act and the rules made there

under which did not postulate any remedy of review and, therefore, the tribunal could not arrogate to itself this jurisdiction to review the Govt.

Order. It is explained that under Sec.3 of the Special. Tribunals Act, only those matters could be transferred to the Special Tribunal in respect of

which remedy of appeal, revision or review lay under the relevant law made by the Legislature. Since, in the present case Land Grants Act did not

provide for any review before the Minister as such no review could be transferred to the Tribunal much less lie before it.

It seems so on the examination of the relevant provisions of the Land Grants Act and the rules made thereunder and also the Special Tribunals Act.

It is the common ground that the Land Grants Act, under which ownership rights were conferred on the petitioners in respect of the land and

shops, does not provide for any remedy of review. That being so, no review of Govt. Order passed under the aforesaid Act, could not lie before

the Tribunal, in the face of provisions of sec. 3 of the Special Tribunals Act which reads thus:

Appeals. revisions. revisions etc. to the Tribunal. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law made by the State Legislature, but save as

otherwise provided in subsection (2) an appeal, revision or review petition which under any & such law lies to the Government or a Minister shall,

from such date as may be appointed by the Government by notification in the Government Gazette, lie or be so preferred, brought, made or

presented to the Tribunal and accordingly any reference in any provisions of such law, which relate to the matters aforesaid, to the Government or

the Minister shall be construed as a reference to the Tribunal.

It is well settled that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law specifically or by necessary implication. No

provision of the Land Grants Act indicates That the concerned Minister had the power to review the Govt. Order passed under it. Once minister

lacked power, the Tribunal also lacked it consequently because only that appeal, revision or review could be maintained before the Tribunal which

under the relevant law (in this case Land Grants Act) would lie to the Minister or the Government. Since, this Act did not provide for any review

before the minister or the Government, the Tribunal was not competent to entertain and dispose of the review petition against the controversial

Govt. Order. I am fortified in this by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1970 SC 1278.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal had misdirected itself by invoking powers by reference to Sec. 151 C.P.C. overlooking

the legal position that inherent powers, even if credited to it, would not include the power of review, Therefore, reliance placed on some judgments

by the Tribunal also seems misplaced.

Resultantly the impugned order falls and is quashed. This shall, however, leave the private respondents 3 & 4 free to seek appropriate remedy

against Govt. Order No. REV (NDJ) 138 of 1979 dated 19.6.1979 in case it still hurts interests.

................................