Summary
A man claiming to be the adopted son of a landowner in Anantnag sued the landowner's natural children for declaration and possession of 11 kanals 15 marlas. He relied on a 1975 compromise with a tenant, endorsed by the landowner's thumb impression, in revenue-record correction proceedings under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972, and on the Deputy Commissioner's order recording it. Three courts decreed the suit. The Court held that the compromise, made in proceedings confined to revenue entries and personal cultivation conferred no title. The land was orchard land excluded from the Act. Since it created rights for the first time and was not a court decree, the compromise required registration. The Deputy Commissioner's order was a nullity, made while the 1972 Act was suspended. The decree was set aside.
Issues
- Whether a compromise recorded in revenue-record correction proceedings under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972, endorsed by the landowner, conferred title on the plaintiff.
- Whether the compromise required registration, and whether it was a family arrangement exempt from that requirement.
- Whether the Deputy Commissioner's order recording the compromise, passed while the 1972 Act was suspended, was a nullity.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(4), 2(6) and 2(7); Agrarian Reforms Rules, 1973, Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972The wide definitions of owner, including an adopted son, and personal cultivation show the proceedings concerned only revenue entries and cultivation. Orchard land was excluded from land under Section 2(4), so no title could pass. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Sections 17, 17(2)(vi) and 49; Section 138, Registration Act (as applicable to J&K); J&K Transfer of Property Act, 1920A compromise creating title for the first time in immovable property worth over Rs 100 requires registration. Being made in revenue, not court, proceedings, it fell outside Section 17(2)(vi), so without registration it could confer no title. (¶¶ 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Sections 3 and 4, Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms (Suspension of Operations) Act, 1975The appeal provision of the 1972 Act was not among those kept alive during the suspension. The Deputy Commissioner therefore lacked inherent jurisdiction, and his order was a nullity open to challenge even collaterally. (¶¶ 29, 30)
Held
- The compromise was recorded in proceedings to correct revenue records under the 1972 Act and must be read within that statute. There owner includes an adopted son, and the Circle Officer's power was limited to verifying revenue entries as of the cut-off date. The landowner's endorsement at most recognised personal cultivation and did not show an intention to pass title. As the land was orchard land excluded from the Act, the compromise conferred no title. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Following Bhoop Singh, K. Raghunandan, Phool Patti and Ripudaman Singh, a compromise that creates rights in immovable property for the first time, rather than recognising pre-existing rights, must be registered. Made in revenue proceedings, not a court proceeding, and covering other land too, this compromise required registration and, unregistered, conferred no title. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- The compromise was not a family arrangement exempt from registration. It was between the plaintiff and an outsider tenant, no other family members were parties, and the plea was raised for the first time in this Court. (¶ 23)
- The Deputy Commissioner's order was passed while the 1972 Act was suspended, and its appeal provision was not saved by Section 4 of the Suspension Act. The order was therefore without inherent jurisdiction and a nullity. Consent cannot confer jurisdiction, and such an order may be challenged wherever relied on, even collaterally. (¶¶ 29, 30)
- Equity follows the law and cannot override it, so estoppel could not defeat the statutory requirements. The landowner had revoked his earlier dispositions in the plaintiff's favour, and his natural children had possessed the self-acquired land for over four decades. Interference under Article 136 despite concurrent findings was warranted. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33)
Result
Appeal allowed. The decree for declaration and possession of 11 kanals 15 marlas in favour of the respondent is set aside; parties to bear their own costs.