The High Court of J&K and ladakh has done away with a fine of Rs one lakh imposed by the court’s single bench on some petitioners for “preventing” authorities in south Kashmir’s Anantnag district from retrieving land of migrants by filing a petition before it.
The single bench had observed that the genesis of the controversy lied in an application filed by the respondents No. 10 and 11, namely, Gautam Bali and Sumeet Bali, who claimed ownership over land measuring 7 kanals 3 marlas falling under survey No. 309 of estate Mamal in Tehsil Pahalgam.
The bench had imposed the costs on the petitioners (Imtiyaz Ahmad Shah and others) with the observation that their intention appeared to encroach the land of the migrants for which the District Magistrate, Anantnag was taking legal action under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection, and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997.”
The petitioners Imtiyaz Ahmad Shah and others challenged the single judge’s order imposing costs on them before the division bench.
Deciding an appeal, a division bench of Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey and Justice Mohan Lal observed the appellants’ interest was in protecting their rights with reference to holding of their property vested under law. The appellants, the court said were not averse to identifying the land of the respondents No. 10 and 11 ( Gautam Bali and Sumeet Bali), but were only averse to retrieval of the land from their own land.
The made this observation in response to the submission by senior advocate Z A Shah on behalf of the appellants.
“On examination and consideration of the matter, we are of the considered view that the appellants (Imtiyaz Ahmad Shah and others) are not claiming any right on the proprietary land of the respondents 10 and 11(Gautam Bali and Sumeet Bali) but their only grievance is that the revenue authorities including the District Magistrate by use of the provisions of the (Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997) recommended the process of dispossessing the appellants from their own land and by taking the same as migrant land,” the division bench said.
The division bench pointed out that on proper examination of the single bench judgment it noticed that the Court has not made any observation or recorded any finding on this aspect of the matter which may have an effect of prejudicing the rights of the contesting parties.
“The act of the court should prejudice none, therefore, in order to ensure that justice is done to the parties, we are of the considered view that both the parties would be done the justice if the revenue authorities are asked to demarcate the land of the appellants and that of the respondents 10 and 11 with reference to their entitlement under law as that will ensure protection and preservation of the migrant property as well”.
