Exchange of proprietary land with state land not permissible: HC

Excelsior Correspondent

Srinagar, Nov 25: High Court today held the exchange of proprietary land for encroached Kadhcharai land is not permissible and the Deputy Commissioner concerned has no power to accept such an offer in absence of any legal basis or statutory framework.
Justice Sanjay Dhar has dismissed the plea of a land owner seeking direction from the court upon the authorities to grant sanction and permission in his favour for exchange of land situated at Pariswani Tehsil Kawarhama in lieu of proprietary land situated in the same area.
As per the case of the petitioner-land owner Mehrajudin Malik, had applied for exchange of his proprietary land measuring against the kahcharai situated at Priswani Tehsil Kawarhama, Baramulla as has been done in case of one Abdul Rehman Malik and non-consideration of his claim resulted into present litigation.
The writ petition of petitioner-Malik has been contested by the respondents by filing a reply submitting therein that sanction has been accorded to the exchange of land in favour of one Abdul Rahman Malik by Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla, in exercise of his powers under Section 133(2) of the Land Revenue Act pursuant to the orders passed by this.
It is submitted by the respondent-authorities that when the case for exchange of land pursuant to similar direction passed by this Court in the case of the petitioner in earlier petition was in process, by that time, the provisions contained in Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act underwent amendment whereby sub-section (2) of the said provision was substituted by a new provision, according to which the power relating to exchange of land has been taken away and now the Deputy Commissioner has no such power.
“…it is clear that the exchange of proprietary land for encroached kahcharai land is not permissible now and the Deputy Commissioner concerned has no power to accept any such offer”, Justice Dhar recorded.
Court said the respondent-authorities are right in submitting that by the time the directions of this Court passed in earlier petition were under consideration, the provision relating to Section 133(2) of the Land Revenue Act underwent change and, as such, claim of the petitioner could not be considered. “For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed”, Court concluded.