Successors claiming tenancy-based ownership under Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act challenged restoration of other co-sharers’ land.
Judge / Bench — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judges; judgment by Sanjay Dhar, J.
A Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court found no pleaded or recorded partition; the partition argument was raised for the first time in appeal. Cultivation by one co-owner of an undivided holding was deemed cultivation and possession of all, so that co-owner could not acquire the others’ shares as their tenant. A separate, unchallenged settlement concerning one co-sharer’s share remained undisturbed. The delay objection also failed because a condonation order existed and the original mutations had been made behind the affected parties’ backs. The appeal was dismissed, preserving the Tribunal’s treatment of the disputed share.
Case — Sarishta Devi and others v. U. T. of J&K and others · LPA/15/2024 · 29 October 2026 · Jammu wing
Advocates appearing — Appellants — Mr. G. S. Thakur, Adv. Respondents — Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Adv. vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG; Mr. S. M. Choudhary, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Mursaleen, Adv.