IN THE COURT OF ADC (ADDL.

DEPUTY COMMISIONER)/
COMMISSIONER AGRARIAN REFORMS JAMMU.

FILE NO. D-O-I D-OD

Kasturi Lal
...................appella
nt
Versus

Khurshida Javaid
.................respondent

ORDER

This is an appeal where the order dated 29-04-1986 by virtue of

which mutation No. 433 of revenue Village Sidhra Tehsil Samba now
Jammu attested under section 12 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1986
in respect of land measuring 7 kanals 10 marlas falling under Khasra No.
317/100 situate at village Sidhra is attested in favour of respondent
Khurshida Javaid. Along with the appeal, application for condonation of
delay has also been filed so as to consider the appeal having been filed well
within the time and further calling the court to consider the appeal on its
merit. It appears that in terms of the previous order, the appeal was to be
considered on the question of maintainability both on the point of
limitation as well as on merits. Same appears to have been heard by my
predecessor. Before he could deliver the judgement, he was transferred
and the case was put up before this court for consideration on the same
issue . today appellant or his counsel did not appear nor any request for
adjournment of the case on their behalf has been received. On the other
side, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the
appellant has dragged him in this litigation after more than 32 years when
the said mutation was attested during the lifetime of his grandfather who
was an attesting witness of the said mutation and also consempted to its
attestation by the then attesting officer. The said mutation was never
questioned by his grandfather Femu who died only in the year 1994 and
thereafter a mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of his father
namely Dhanraj who also accepted the said mutation till his death and
never questioned it. After the death of Shri Dhan Raj the appellant has
filed this appeal without any legal and factual basis as under law, no
appeal can be preferred against a consent order. Mutation No. 433 dated
29-04-1986 has been attested on the basis of a compromise arrived at
between Femu grandfather of the applicant and the respondent which is
clearly reflected by the officer attesting the mutation with reference to the
compromise deed presented by the parties in the court of commissioner
Agrarian Reforms on 21-04-1986 which agreement was duly
authenticated/attested by tehsildar agraraian reforms Samba under
section 12 of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1996. He seeks dismissal of the
appeal on the above mentioned grounds besides submitting that the
appellant simultaneously filed a suit for PPI in the court of Ld. Sub
Registrar Jammu where initially an interim order was passed in his favour
and subsequently when the respondent appeared and filed her written
statement, application for interim relief under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 was
considered by the said court. In terms of Order Dated- 18-09-2021, the
court of Ld. Subregistrar Jammu dismissed the said application vacating
the interim order by a detailed and reason judgement. The said order was
further challenged by the appellant in the court of 2 nd Addl. District Judge
Jammu who upheld the Order dated 18-09-2021 vide a detailed order and
judgement dated 14-01-2022 passed in case titled Kasturi Lal V/s
Khurshida. The order dated 14-01-2022 passed by Ld. Additional District
Judge Jammu was further challenged by the appellant in the Honourable
J&K High Court at Jammu through the medium of writ Petition Civil
No.___________________. The said writ petition was considered by the
Honable High Court and vide a detailed and comprehensive Judgment
dated _____________ same was dismissed on merits. The Ld. Counsel has
produced copies of these judgements in the support of his contentions and
has submitted that the appellant has unnecessarily dragged the
respondent in this litigation when he has no locus standi to challenge a
mutation attested on the basis of a compromise recorded between his
grandfather and the respondents.

I have gone through the menu of appeal filed by the

appellant in this court besides i have also perused and critically analysed
the judgement passed by civil courts as upheld by the Honable J&K High
Court at Jammu. On the face of the three judgements delivered by the
three courts including Honable J&K High Court following conclusions
have emerged.

1. Mutation No. 5433 dated 29-04-1986 has been attested by the

then competent revenue officer on the basis of a private
agreement duly authenticated by the then Tehsildar Agrarian
Reforms Samba and to that effect is the statement of Femu
recorded the body of the mutation itself besides other marginal
witnesses to the mutation order.
2. Late Shri Femu, the grandfather of appellant died somewhere in
1994 and mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of
Dhanraj, the father of appellant herein. Thus the father of
appellant never inherited land measuring 7 Kanals 10 Marlas
which was subject matter of mutation No. 433 dated 29-04-1986
as the said land stood already transferred by way of the said
mutation in the name of respondent on 29-04-1986. In this
situation, the appellant being successor of Dhanraj cannot claim
what was not claimed or inherited by Dhanraj from his father
Femu, grandfather of the appellant.
3. The cause to file an appeal against mutation order No. 433 dated
29-04-1986 was available to Femu, the grandfather of appellant
and thereafter to Dhanraj, the father of appellant who accepted
the position as is recored in mutation NO. 433 dated 29 -04-
1986 by virtue of which title of the land stood transferred in
favour of respondents who is enjoying the same for the last over
36 years.
4. Under the law of prescription where a party enjoys possession of
immovable property continuously and uninterruptedly for the 12
years with the full knowledge of the opposite party not in
possession of the immovable property forfeited his rights in the
said property as all his rights if any stood extinguished. Though
the said principal is not attracted in this case as the land owner
Shri Femu were entirely and willingly parted both with the title
and possession of the land in favour of respondent during his
 lifetime and never agitated the matter even though he remained
alive for more than 8 years after attestation of mutation No. 433
dated 29-04-1986. The said position continued with Dhanraj who
died in the year 2017 and never agitated the mater in any forum.
The appellant being at stage three and after expiry of period of
more than 30 years cannot file the appeal inter-alia contending
that late Shri Femu was not heard and was not issued any notice
at the time of attestation of mutation which fact is not born our
from the record rather it be lies the contention of appellant who
perhaps was a minor at that time and with the passage of time,
grew major, when his father was alive and saw this factual
position himself through all these years till the filing of this
appeal.
5. In view of the afore-stated factual position the plea of the
petitioner seeking condonation of delay in the first instance is not
made out and such a long delay cannot be condoned. Appeal on
that ground merits dismissal. However as the parties through
their pleadings saw determination of the issue on merits thus
this court examined the merits so that complete justice can be
done to the parties.
6. The grounds taken in para 3 in support of the appeal precisely
are as under-.
That agreement executed on 21-04-1986 by the parties in respect
of land measuring 7 kanals 10 marlas could not have been
entered and authenticated by the then tehsildar as same was not
between the landlord and the tenant.
That the agreement was not registered by the said registrar
under the registration act nor it was authenticated by the
tehsildar in terms of sec 12 of the Agrarian Reforms Act.
That Tehsildar was only to authenticate the agreement and not to
register the same as he was not designated as subregistrar.
That agreement dated 21 -04-1986 was executed in violation of
sec 12 of the Agrarian Reforms Act and standing order 23 A
clause 104.
That the grandfather of appellant was allottee of the state land
under govt order LB-6/C & S 432. As per the provision contained
under Sec 3 of the Agrarian Reforms Act read with Schedule 2 ,
the provisions of Sec 4,8 and 12 were not applicable to the said
land.
That mutation order is in violation of standing order 23.
That tehsildar agrarian reforms can exercise provision under
section 4 or 8 or 12 if the provisions of agrarian reforms act are
applicable.
In para 4 of the appeal, the appellant has stated that the counsel
of appellant came to know about this mutation on 27-12-2018
when written statement was filed in civil suit tiled Kasturi las vs
khurshida javaid.
 After going through the grounds taken in the appeal, it
is sufficient to state that all these grounds may have
been available to the grand father of the appellant who
consciously accepted the mutation order in 1986 and
remained alive 8 years after attestation of the mutation,
the irresistible conclusion is the at the grandfather of
the applicant accepted the agreement as well as the
order of mutation in his presence and with his consent
the appellant therefore cannot take a plea and reopen a
concluded matted when the property is subject matter
of the mutation never passed onto the appellant by
inheritance/succession as appellant can succeed only
on such land/property which was inherited by his
grandfather or his father. It therefore appears to be a
total stranger to the said property who has reason from
slumber after three decades to re-agitate the matter by
filing this appeal when he has lost his battle for
continuation of interim relief on merits.
 This court therefore is persuated by the judgement of
civil courts as upheld by the Honable High Court and
came to the conclusion that the instant appeal is a
belated attempt de-void of and merits both on the
provision of limitation as well as on its merits.
 Suffice it to say that considering the grounds same are
misconceived in as much as the agreement executed
and attested by the tehsildar on the basis of a
compromise cannot be said to be bad in law, similarly
the contention as regards inapplicability of the
provisions of sec 4,8 and 12 to the land allotted to a
tenant in terms of govt order LB6C of 1998 and S 429 is
also misconceived as a perusal of section 3 read with
schedule 2nd with reference to land owned ,held or
acquired by the Govt of j and k or the govt of India other
than the land vested or deemed to have been vested in
the state by or under this act and land described in
schedule 2nd with reference to section 26 , 38 and 39
has to be considered. What is contended by the
appellant is not borne out from a close reading of
Section 3-B i and ii. As regards competence of tehsildar
 to attest a private agreement is concerned, a perusal of
sec 12 clearly indicates that such agreements either
should be duly registered under the j and k registration
act 1977 or authenticated by revenue officer not lower
the level of tehsildar. Thus the agreement if it is
authenticated by a tehsildar for purposes of sec 12 it is
enough as the word or makes it a substitute of the
agreement registered under Registration Act 197 BU.

The legislature consciously provided the alternative mode of

registration/authentication of the agreement with a view to simplify
the procedure for arriving to a conclusion under section 12 thus on
the said ground as well the contention raised is not maintainable in
law. The plea of mutation order is contrary to standing order 23 A is
also not substantiated as ex land owner late Shri Femu was present in
the camp and on his instance as when the said mutation was a
initiated and attested.

For the aforesaid reasons the instant appeal is devoid of merits and
same is dismissed being time barred.

Whatever has been stated on merits is simply with a view to avoid

any element of injustice to the appellant on the question of dismissal
of appeal being time barred and shall be limited to the determination
of the said issue.