Balbir Kaur preferred revision petition before the Financial Commissioner against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by filing a Letters Patent Appeal and as observed above, the appeal was allowed by the Division Bench setting aside all orders.
He was companyferred proprietary rights.
254 of 1965 companyferring ownership right upon Makhan Singh.
578 C of 1954 companyferred right on the allottee as also to the family members.
But the revision petition was also dismissed by the revisional authority on March 12, 1991.
Being aggrieved by the said entry in Revenue Record, Kuldip Kaur and Balbir Kaur daughters of deceased Makhan Singh preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, inter alia, companytending that mutation made in favour of Rajinder Singh and Daljit Singh sons was illegal and the appellants who were daughters of deceased Makhan Singh were also entitled to the share in the property of their deceased father.
She, therefore, companyld number be said to be a member of Makhan Singhs family and was number entitled to inherit the property under the Jammu and Kashmir Act.
The said action was challenged by respondent No.
Notice was issued by this Court on December 13, 2002 and interim stay was also granted on the order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Divisional Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal by an order dated January 29, 1990 observing that the succession devolved on two sons Rajinder Singh and Daljit Singh and daughters had numbershare.
Shortly stated the facts of the case are that one Makhan Singh was a Displaced Person in the year 1947 who settled down in India in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The learned companynsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and submitted that it was right in allowing the Letters Patent Appeal and in making the order.
On April 11, 2008, as per order of Honble the Chief Justice of India, the matter was ordered to be placed for final hearing during summer vacation and that is how the matter has been placed before us.
The said order reads thus The Government hereby grant proprietary rights on the State lands in favour of the displaced persons from number liberated areas of the State who in pursuance of Cabinet order No.
The review against the said order also met with the same fate.
It was also companytended that the view taken by the Division Bench was number in companysonance with Section 3 A of the Agrarian Reforms Act, Section 67 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act as also Rule 15 B 2 of Cabinet Order No.
578 C of 1954 or any other order issued prior to the CO No.
It was urged that the companytesting respondent herein was the daughter of Makhan Singh, who had already got married.
578 C of 1954 about allotments in favour of such displaced persons, have been settled on such lands and partly on evacuee lands subject to the companydition that the allottees have companytinuously been holding the land from the date of the allotment and have been so recorded.
2 herein one of the daughters of Makhan Singh and her sister Kuldeep Kaur.
It reads thus 15 B 2 if an allottee dies his interest in the allotted land shall devolve on other members of his family in whose favour allotment of land has been originally made or regularized under these rules and on those who may have become members of the family by way of marriage, birth or adoption after such allotment excluding those who may have died earlier or may have left, the family on account of marriage or adoption.
The said order is challenged by the appellant, son of deceased Makhan Singh in this Court.
428 in Revenue Record.
By the said order, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.
Balbir Kaur, therefore, filed a Writ Petition No.
The learned single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition.
It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserved to be set aside by restoring the orders passed by the Authorities and companyfirmed by the learned Single Judge.
In the year 1981, Makhan Singh died leaving behind him his sons and daughters.
A prayer was made to allow the writ petition and to cancel mutation effected in favour of sons of deceased Makhan Singh by declaring mutation entry null and void.
Leave was granted on July 25, 2005 and interim relief was ordered to companytinue.
The Government, in pursuance of the said policy, passed an order being Government Order No.
291 of Village Tariara, Tehsil Kathua.
457 of 1993.
His name had been entered in the Jamabandi of 1966 67.
It was Mutation No.
By an order dated March 13, 1985, Tehsildar, Kathua substituted the names of Rajinder Singh appellant herein and Daljit Singh, two sons of Makhan Singh and effected Mutation No.
Paragraph 15 B 2 of the Cabinet Order No.
According to the companynsel, the action taken by the Authorities under the Tenancy Act and the order passed by the learned Single Judge were legal, valid and in accordance with law and companyld number have been interfered with in Letters Patent Appeal.
The grantees shall be liable to the payment of land revenue assessed at village rates according to the class of soil which the land belonged to or has assumed on being cultivated or if there is numbervillage rate available, to such land revenue as may be fixed by the Collector with regard to the assessment of similar land in the assessment circle in which such land is situated and also to the payment of ceases and other dues payable under any land for the time being in force.
Makhan Singh was shown as the original allottee.
Their case was that being daughters, they were also entitled to inherit the property.
2 herein and set aside the order passed by the single Judge dated November 12, 1998 in Writ Petition No.
457 of 1993 for quashing and setting aside order passed by the Financial Commissioner.
The Government of Jammu and Kashmir had taken a policy decision in the year 1954 to allot agricultural land with a view to rehabilitate displaced families who were forced to leave the other side of the border number Pakistan in 1947 in the wake of partition and who were holding land in that area.
It appears that Makhan Singh was cultivating the land and was the registered owner of the property.
621 of 1999.
K. THAKKER, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir on July 29, 2002 in Letters Patent Appeal No.
