J&K High Court Remands Matter to J&K Special Tribunal for Re-Consideration

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

On 1st September 2020, Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur heard the case of Kunti Kumar and Anr. Vs. J&K Special Tribunal and Anr, via video-conferencing. The Court held that the order passed by the J&K Special Tribunal is unsustainable. Therefore, they were set aside.

Facts of the case

The dispute arose about the possession of land measuring 12 kanals which fell under Khasra No. 162, Kathua. The respondent – Hanso claimed that the said land was based upon adverse possession. The said respondent owned the said land since 1964. During the earlier round of litigation, on 16th January 2006, the Collector Agrarian Reforms (Assistant Commissioner) recorded a finding in favour of the respondent. The order stated that the said respondent owned the land for more than twelve years. Therefore, he was declared as its owner by way of adverse possession under Section 19 (E) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. 

The above order was challenged before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Kathua by way of an appeal. On 29th May 2011, it was dismissed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kathua with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms. Further, this order was challenged before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu by way of a revision petition. The same was dismissed vide order dated 9th March 2015. Hence, the present writ petition is filed against the order of J&K Special Tribunal.

Arguments of the Petitioners

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the authorities ignored the fact that the claim by way of adverse possession could succeed only if the adverse possession was for or beyond the period of twelve years. In the present case, respondents claimed possession of the land since 1964. However, in 1973, the petitioners filed a civil suit for possession against the respondents. This was transferred to the Authority under the Agrarian Reforms Act in 1978. Therefore, on the date of filing of the civil suit for possession, the right of the respondents had not fructified in one of the adverse possessions.

Court’s Analysis

Upon a perusal of all three orders stated, it is prima facie clear that they are non-speaking orders. Further, none of the authorities has taken the trouble of considering the effect of the civil suit for possession filed by the petitioner in 1973. The authorities had to consider the effect of the filing of the civil suit in 1973 keeping in view the fact that the respondents claimed possession only from 1964. 

Court’s Decision

The Court held that the orders impugned are unsustainable. Thus, they are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Special Tribunal, Jammu for re-consideration. The Court disposed of the petition. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30th September 2020.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments of the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -