Srinagar, Dec 4: The High Court today said that alienation of any migrant property without proper permission is not valid and upheld the order of Deputy Commissioner whereby the migrant property has been ordered to be attached.
One Ghulam Rasool Bhat 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 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, Madusudan 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 filed an application before Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir alleging therein unauthorized occupation of the aforesaid land.
Justice Sanjay Dhar after perusal of the law said that any alienation of immovable property of a migrant without previous permission of Revenue and Relief Minister has to be treated as null and void.
“Therefore, the documents, on the basis of 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 on the basis of aforesaid documents which are not even registered”, Justice Dhar recorded.
“…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, occupation of the petitioner over the property in question has been unauthorized in nature 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 concluded, and said there is no merit in the case of petitioner-Bhat and accordingly dismissed the same.
The contention of Bhat that the order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner and not the District Magistrate, Court said the contention is without any substance.
“Even otherwise, Deputy Commissioner of a District also exercises power of a District Magistrate within his jurisdiction and, as such, it cannot be stated that there is any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order”, read the judgment.