Srinagar: The High Court has ruled that the petitioners had a legal obligation to surrender the property designated as migrant property to the Tehsildar following the eviction order issued by the District Magistrate.
Only after complying with this requirement could their appeal against the eviction order be considered by the Financial Commissioner (FC) in Kashmir.
Initially, the petitioners had contested the eviction order before the FC, but their appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, they challenged both the District Magistrate’s eviction order and the FC’s decision to dismiss their appeal in two separate writ petitions filed with the High Court.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a consolidated judgment, pointed out that it was mandatory for the petitioners to relinquish control of the land in question to allow their appeal to be reviewed by the Appellate Authority. However, the petitioners chose to file the appeal with the Financial Commissioner without adhering to this requirement.
As a result, the Financial Commissioner was justified in deeming it not maintainable. Justice Dhar concluded that there was no substance in these writ petitions, which were therefore dismissed. Any interim orders, if issued, were canceled.
The District Magistrate of Shopian, utilizing the powers granted under Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, had instructed the Naib Tehsildar, Kanjiullar, to take possession of the specified land, which included parcels measuring 25 kanals 17 marlas and 8 kanals located in Ramnagri, Shopian.
According to the petitioners, Billo, Kasana, and others, the land in question was not classified as migrant property because it had been cultivated or held under tenancy by their ancestors even prior to the Kharief of 1971. They argued that the land was currently under their cultivation, and therefore, the District Magistrate’s eviction order lacked jurisdiction.
The petitioners’ argument in court was that the District Magistrate had not conducted a proper investigation to determine whether their possession of the land could be considered unauthorized. Additionally, they claimed that no inquiry was made into whether the private respondents were migrants. According to the petitioners, the private respondents had left the region even before November 1, 1989, and were therefore not migrants.
In response, the authorities asserted that a comprehensive inquiry had been conducted by the District Magistrate of Shopian before issuing the contested order. They argued that there were no legal issues with either the District Magistrate’s order or the Financial Commissioner’s decision.
The objections presented by the authorities further indicated that a thorough inquiry had been conducted, during which a report was obtained from the Tehsildar of Shopian. In this report, dated August 25, 2014, it was clearly stated that the land in question was registered in the names of Deena Nath and Shamboo Nath. Additionally, it was claimed that the petitioners had unlawfully occupied the land.
Regarding the issuance of the eviction order, the court stated that the District Magistrate had the authority to take necessary measures for the preservation and protection of such property, including the removal of unauthorized occupants.
The judgment also noted that the petitioners claimed to have paid rent for the land to the private respondents, but according to the Tehsildar’s report, the petitioners took possession of the land after the landowners had migrated.
