J&K and Ladakh High Court Rules Establishing Landlord-Tenant Link Pertinent to Avail Rights under Agrarian Reforms Act

J&K and Ladakh High Court Rules Establishing Landlord-Tenant Link Pertinent to Avail Rights under Agrarian Reforms Act

Dismisses the petition while declining to exercise its jurisdiction under the Indian Constitution

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that to procure advantage under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 a relationship of a landlord and a tenant must be established between the parties.

The Bench comprising Justice Javed Iqbal Wani emphasized, "The Act of 1976 was brought into existence to extinguish the relationship between a landlord and a tenant, and a scheme was formulated on how, and in which manner the relationship should come to an end. To get the benefit of Sections 4 and 8 it had to be established that there was a relationship of a landlord and a tenant between the parties and a tenant who was in possession of the land in Kharief 1971 was paying rent to the landlord.”

Section 4 defines the criteria for tenants to qualify for benefits, including possession of the land during Kharief 1971 and rent payment. Similarly, Section 8 deals with issuing Mutation Certificates to eligible tenants, confirming changes in land records to recognize them as legitimate occupants or owners.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 challenging two orders. First, passed on 15 May 2019 by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue)/Commissioner of Agrarian Reforms. Second, passed on 11 June 2019 by the J&K Special Tribunal. The dispute revolved around mutations attested under the Agrarian Act, in favor of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the mutations, in 2015, the respondents, filed an appeal claiming that their father, who passed away in 1977, was the rightful owner of the land. They alleged that the petitioner's father was a hired laborer without any landlord-tenant relationship, and the mutations were attested illegally, and they were not given any notice.

The appellate forum, while condoning the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the mutations and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry. The forum found fault with the attestation process, particularly the 'Sehti Kasht' mutation.

Thereafter, the respondents filed a revision petition, which too was dismissed by the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal.

In 2017, yet again, the appellate forum condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the mutations, remanding the case for a fresh inquiry. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal, which upheld the appellate forum's decision.

The petitioner challenged both orders, claiming that they were not decided correctly and that the delay in filing the appeals was wrongly condoned.

The Bench observed that the land was agricultural and had a recorded history of the father of the petitioner being a tenant before the Agrarian Reforms Act came into force. However, no mutations were attested in favor of the petitioner's father during his lifetime.

The judge pointed out, “The mutations under Sections 4 and 8 indisputably came to be attested in favor of the petitioner in the year 1982 and 1983, respectively only after. In the first instance, the official respondent effected a change in the Girdawari by attesting ‘Sehti Kasht’ Mutation No. 2369 on 18.6.1982 without any inquiry whatsoever, which ought to have been conducted in terms of Rule 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Rules 1977.”

The Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India citing that due to these findings, both the lower forums had concurred on the issues.

Thus, while dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that the judgment was specific to the issues raised in the petition. It did not express an opinion on the matter to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner of the revenue department, during the fresh inquiry.