Vijay Jamwal vs UT Of J&K & Ors

Rajesh Sekhri, J

Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 20.07.2022, passed by respondent no. 2-Additional Deputy Commissioner (with the powers of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner) Jammu, (hereinafter referred to as the “appellate Court”), vide which order passed by respondent no. 3-Tehsildar Nagrota, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “court below”) to initiate proceedings under Section 28-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 ( for short “Act”) with respect to the subject land has been upheld.

Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, it shall be apt to have an overview of following uncontroverted facts.

Petitioner claims to be owner in possession of land measuring 09 kanals comprised of Khasra No. 93 min situate at village Khanpur, Tehsil Nagrota, which was reflected in the record of rights indicating that said land was purchased by the petitioner from one Sita Ram. According to the petitioner, he has been enjoying peaceful possession of the said land. One Banarsi Dass, questioned the title of the petitioner. A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction came to be filed by the petitioner in the Court of learned City Judge Jammu which was decreed in his favour. Said Banarsi Dass had also filed a petition before Assistant Settlement Officer, Jammu under Section 28-A of the Act which came to be dismissed on the ground that matter was subjudice before the Civil Court. Subsequently, private respondent no. 4, in the present case, preferred a petition before Deputy Commissioner, Jammu alleging inter alia that land in question had been sold in violation of the Act and proceedings under Section 28-A of the Act were required to be initiated. This petition also came to be dismissed by Assistant Settlement Officer on 22.02.2012 on the ground that Civil Court was seized of the matter. No appeal was preferred against the said order. Respondent no. 4 again represented before the Deputy Commissioner and learned court below proposed to initiate proceedings in terms of Section 28-A of the Act qua 5 kanals 16 marlas of land. This order came to be questioned by the petitioner and learned appellate court vide impugned order has upheld the order passed by the court below.

Petitioner has questioned the impugned order on various grounds urged in the memo of appeal, however, Mr. G.S. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the solitary premise that impugned order is without any reason and is liable to be set aside.

It is trite that inevitability to document reasons is aimed to prevent injury in reaching the conclusion and disclose how mind was applied in substance of the litigation. It goes without saying that every judicial order should contain sound reasons for two reasons; one- if valid reasons are not found in the order, such an order become erroneous and two; if an order is informed of reasons, the person aggrieved can avail the opportunity to demonstrate that reasons were erroneous. Therefore, recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim would ensure that decision is not a result of fancy, but was arrived at having due regard to the position of law. What emanates from the perusal of the impugned order is that learned appellate court has failed to judicially sift the contentions of the parties and inspect the plea made in the appeal.

A bare perusal of the record would show that learned appellate court has passed the impugned order without adverting to the legal and factual aspects of the matter. The petitioner had not only detailed factual aspects of the case in the appeal before the appellate court but raised various legal issues against the order passed by learned court below. In the circumstances, the appellate Court, was required to scrutinise the pleadings in its wisdom and obliged to pass the orders on merits. However, learned appellate Court, by merely referring to the pleadings of the parties and arguments advanced at bar, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner in a cryptic fashion without assigning any reason therefor. Despite reflection of pleadings and legal grounds urged by the petitioner in the impugned order, learned appellate court has neither adverted to the pleadings nor addressed the legal issues to show thoughtful consideration of the controversy. It is surprising to note that learned appellate court on the one hand observed that court below had violated Section 28 of the Act and then refused interference. It is absurd.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order being perverse and illegal is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the appellate Court to reconsider the matter and pass an order afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to learned counsels for the parties and with reasonable promptitude preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date copy of this order is made available to it.

Disposed of accordingly along with connected application(s).