Jammu and Kashmir High Court
OWP/2135/2017 of SALEEMA BEGUM Vs STATE OF JK AND ORS (REVENUE) on 30 December 2017
2135/2017 Page 1 of 2 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR OWP No. 2135/2017 MP No. 01/2017 Date of decision: 30.12.2017 Saleema Begum vs. State of J&K and others Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Janak Raj Kotwal, Judge Appearance: For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajaz Ahmad
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRAT SRINAGAR
OWP No. 2135/2017 MP No. 01/2017
Date of decision: 30.12.2017
Saleema Begum vs. State of J&K and others
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Janak Raj Kotwal, Judge Appearance:
For the appellant/petitioner(s) :
Mr. Ajaz Ahmad Chesti, Adv.
For the respondent(s):
(i)Whether to be reported in Press, Journal/Media: Yes/No
(ii)Whether to be reported in Journal/Digest: Yes/No
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length and record on the file perused.
2. Record on the file would show that an order dated 03.07.1989 passed by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Kashmir was challenged in revision petition No. 2562 by one Sultan Najar before the J&K Special Tribunal at Srinagar. Learned Speical Tribunal dismissed the revision petition its by order dated 22.02.1993. The order passed by the learned Tribunal would show that therein petitioner did not appear before the learned Tribunal on series of successive dates fixed therein and ultimately learned Tribunal dismissed the revision petition observing that the order impugned dated 03.07.1989 ‘appears to be based on facts and no case whatsoever is made out’ so no interference was called for.
3. In this writ petition, petitioner, Saleema Begum, who claims to be the daughter of Sultan Najar, challenges the order dated 22.02.1993 (supra) mainly on the ground therein petitioner, Sultan Najar, had died in the year 1990 so the order passed against a dead person cannot sustain. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued vehemently that the order passed by the learned Special Tribunal is illegal and nullity as the same was passed against a dead person.
4. The plea taken on behalf of the petitioner is not legally sustainable for the reason that no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Special Tribunal in looking into the legality of the order impugned before it. Even if it is presumed for the sake of the argument that the revision petitioner therein had died in the year, 1990, in that case also, as his legal representative had not come forward to pursue the revision petition, the revision had automatically abated and was liable to be dismissed on that score also. The impugned order dated 22.02.1993, therefore, cannot be said to have been passed against the dead person as by virtue of this order the revision petition was dismissed, which otherwise was the natural consequence of no representation of behalf of the petitioner therein, may be due to his death. No case for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court more than two decades of passing of the impugned order in such circumstances is made out.
4
Viewed thus, this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.
(Janak Raj Kotwal)
Judge
Srinagar: 30.12.2017 Rakesh