Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Sept 11: In a significant judgment, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has ruled that landowners who acquired property under Government Order No. S-432 of 1966 cannot be compelled to seek prior Government permission before alienating their land. The court has directed the Union Territory administration to furnish revenue extracts (Fard Intekhab) to the petitioners, enabling them to proceed with transactions of their landholdings.
The verdict was delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar while disposing of three connected writ petitions. The petitions were filed by Mohan Lal Angral, Karan Singh and Ram Parshad, landowners from Samba and Kathua districts, who approached the court after revenue authorities declined to issue extracts citing the restrictive clause of the 1966 Government order.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Aseem Kumar Sawhney with Advocates Kashif Malik and Bhavesh Bhushan. The Government was represented by Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General.
The petitioners argued that once proprietary rights were granted in 1966, they were absolute owners of the land and could not be restrained from alienation, relying on precedents including Mohammad Akbar Shah Versus State (AIR 2017 J&K 14) and Angrez Singh Versus UT of J&K (AIR 2023 J&K 533). The Government, however, insisted that the condition of prior permission for alienation was binding, and therefore, no Fard Intekhab could be issued without such approval.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, after examining the records and earlier rulings, observed that the issue was no longer res integra. The court reiterated that the clause requiring Government permission had become otiose after proprietary rights were conferred, and could not be enforced to limit ownership. He noted that the very purpose of the restriction in 1966 was to ensure agricultural use at a time when farming was the backbone of the State’s economy. However, with the shift in economic realities and subsequent legislative changes, the restriction had lost its relevance.
The court pointed out that the landmark judgment in Mohammad Akbar Shah’s case had already settled the controversy, declaring that once ownership rights were conferred, landholders were governed by the Transfer of Property Act and Agrarian Reforms Act, not by the outdated condition of the 1966 order. The judge also emphasized that the Government had not challenged or secured a stay against these earlier judgments in higher forums, despite repeatedly raising objections in similar cases.
Rejecting the Government’s plea to defer hearing, Justice Dhar held: “It is not open to the respondents to refuse issuance of revenue extract in respect of the land owned and possessed by the petitioners on the ground that the same has been acquired by them in terms of Government Order No. S-432 of 1966.”
With this ruling, the petitions were allowed, and the authorities were directed to furnish the revenue extracts for the land parcels in question.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
