Upholding the order of Deputy Commissioner Budgam to attach migrant property, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that alienation of any migrant property without proper permission is not valid.
Justice Sanjay Dhar of the High Court refused to quash the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, whereby Tehsildar Chadoora had been directed to take over possession of land, which was obtained by the petitioner from two persons considered as migrants under the Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection, and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997.
"Any alienation of immovable property of a migrant without the permission of Revenue and Relief Minister has to be treated as null and void," the Court said.
Petitioner challenged Deputy Commissioner Budgam's order
One Ghulam Rasool Bhat has challenged the order of Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, whereby Tehsildar, Chadoora, has been directed to take over possession of the land measuring 7 kanals situated at Village Ropora Namthal Tehsil Chadoora.
The order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the exercise of his powers under the Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection, and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997.
Bhat claimed to have purchased the land from one Madusudan Razdan and Ashok Kumar Razdan-respondent way back in the year 1989 and obtained possession of the said land from them. It is averred that a proper sale deed could not be executed. Nevertheless, on 23rd February 1998, Madhusudan Razdan and Ashok Kumar Razdan executed an agreement to sell in his favour.
Ashok Kumar Razdan contended that the documents which the petitioner relied on are forged as such applied to Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir alleging therein unauthorized occupation of the aforesaid land.
Petitioner cannot claim any right on property, Court directs
Justice Sanjay Dhar after perusal of the law said that any alienation of immovable property of a migrant without permission of the Revenue and Relief Minister has to be treated as null and void.
"Therefore, the documents, based on which petitioner is claiming possession and which have been, admittedly, executed after coming into force of the Act of 1997, are null and void. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any right including the right to possess the property in question based on aforesaid documents which are not even registered", Justice Dhar observed
"Any person who comes in occupation of said property except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1997 and the rules framed there-under which contemplates prior permission of Revenue and Relief Minister, would become an unauthorized occupant thereof. Thus, the occupation of the petitioner over the property in question has been unauthorized from its very inception.
Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was well within his jurisdiction to pass the impugned order directing eviction of the petitioner from the property in question", Justice Dhar stated and said there is no merit in the case of petitioner-Bhat and accordingly dismissed the same.
