Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J. The captioned appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 03.12.2019, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, has been dismissed.
2. The appellant, herein, being non-subject applied for permission of purchasing some property, in Tehsil Dudyal. The Commissioner, Mirpur vide order dated 24.06.2014 granted Ijazat nama to purchase a piece of land of built up house comprising land not exceeding two kanals situated in Tehsil, Mirpur for residential purposes only. Thereafter, the Assistant Secretary Board of Revenue through amending orders dated 13.08.2014 and 29.08.2014 replaced the word "Tehsil Mirpur" with "Tehsil Dudyal" and the word "land" with the "built up property". It is alleged that the appellant purchased the land measuring one kanal from proforma Respondent No. 3, in Tehsil Dudyal and thereafter applied for registration of the sale-deed before sub-Registrar Dudyal on 22.12.2014. The learned sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed on two accounts (i) that the land cannot be transferred in favour of any person who is non-state subject; and (ii) that amending orders were issued without lawful authority. The appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Mirpur who accepted the same to the extent that the amending orders were issued in accordance with law.
Dissatisfied, the appellant challenged the vires of Section 4 of Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, 1993 Bik, and the aforesaid amending orders being contrary to the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974 as well as the Council Order No. 804 of 1935 read with notification dated 20.04.1927; by filing a writ petition before the High Court. After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court dismissed the writ petition through the Impugned judgment, hence, this appeal.
3. Mr. Babar Ali Khan, Advocate, representing the appellant, asserts that the High Court's order under scrutiny is in violation of the law. He contends that the term "state subject" is defined in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, which means "a person for the time being residing in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir or Pakistan who is a 'State Subject' as defined in the late Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Notification No. I-L/84 dated the 20th April, 1927, as amended form time to time." By citing the aforementioned notification, he argues that the transfer of land to non-state subjects is permissible upon the issuance of a ijazat nama from the government, Consequently, the appellant has fulfilled all the necessary requirements, yet the respondents have failed to register the sale deed in his favor. Moreover, Mr. Babar Ali Khan emphasizes that the Courts below have misinterpreted Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, 1995 Bik. He highlights that a note accompanying this section specifies that the definition of a state subject shall be as given in the Council Notification dated 20.04.1927. The celebrated principle of interpreting statutes mandates that the provisions of the law should be interpreted as a whole. Unfortunately, all the Courts below neglected this critical aspect of the case. Given these circumstances, Respondent No. 2 was legally obligated to register the sale deed in favor of the appellant, in accordance with the existing laws and regulations. Consequently, the judgments rendered by the lower Courts are flawed and untenable, warranting their reversal by granting the relief sought by the appellant.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. In the instant case the Sub-Registrar, Dudyal, refused the registration of the sale deed presented by the appellant on two grounds, (i) that Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, 1995 (Bik), prohibits the transfer of land to non-state subjects, and (iii) Amended orders of ijazatnama were issued without lawful authority. The appeal filed by the appellant herein, was accepted to the extent of issuance. of amended orders. However, the learned District Judge empowered as District Registrar, Mirpur, maintained the objection of the Sub-Registrar to the extent of prohibition of transfer of land to non-state subjects. Feeling aggrieved, as no other remedy was provided under the Registration Act, 1908, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The learned High Court while concurring with the finding of the District Judge/District Registrar, dismissed the writ petition.
6. Before, embarking upon the facts and merits of the instant case, it will be useful to have a glimpse of the private international law with regard to citizenship. It may be put that after universally recognized right, i.e., the right to life available to man, the right to citizenship is of very fundamental nature. Other rights available to citizens and state subjects of a particular political territory are subject to existence of status of citizenship and State Subject. Citizenship represents political status of an individual by virtue of which he/she owes allegiance to a particular territory.
This provides relationship between an individual and legal system of that particular territory. The Azad State of Jammu Kashmir and Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir being two divided territories between India and Pakistan, still await final resolution of dispute by the will of people of both territories, under the resolutions of the United Nation's Security Council. In this backdrop, the right to hold and have State Subject, which was equal to citizenship of any sovereign territory, provided under Notification No. I-L/84 dated 20th April 1927, still has Constitutional and legal backing. Article 2(1) of AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, defines the term 'State Subject' as follows: "State Subject means a person for the time being residing in Azad Jammu and Kashmir or Pakistan who is a State Subject, as defined in the late Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Notification No. I-L/84, dated the 20th April, 1927, as amended from time to time."
In the instant case the issue before the Court is whether the Sub-Registrar lawfully refused the registration of the sale-deed which was to be registered on the strength of the 'Ijazat Nama', issued in favour of the appellant by the competent authority. We are of unanimous view that the Sub- register, as well as the District Registrar and the learned High Court failed to adhere to the Constitutional provision, Notification No. I-L/84 dated 20th April 1927, AJ&K State Subject Act, 1980 and the State Subject Rules, 1980. The relevant clause of said Notification of 1927, is reproduced herein: "CLASS III. All persons other than those belonging to Class I and II permanently residing within the State, who have acquired under a rayatnanta any immovable property therein or who may hereafter acquire such property under an ijazatnama and may execute a rayatnama after ten years' continuous residence therein."
The above reproduced clause, being part of Notification dated 20th April, 1927, which has constitutional sanctity under Article 2(1) of the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974, explicitly demonstrates that persons who have acquired immoveable property under 'Ijazatnama' shall enjoy the status of State Subject class III, after ten years of such acquisition of immoveable property. The Sub-registrar, Dadyal, failed to appreciate the exact relevant provisions of the Constitution and law and wrongly resorted to Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, 1995 (Bik) while refusing to registrar the sale deed.
10. In view of the Constitutional and legal position described hereinabove, we are of the unanimous view that the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the constitutional provisions as well as the notification dated 20th April, 1927, having sanctity of constitutional backing. After Issuance of ijazatnama in favour of the appellant, Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, 1995 (Bik) was not a hurdle in registration of sale deed presented by the appellant rather this section Itself provides that the definition of a state subject shall be as given in notification dated 20th April, 1927. We have no hesitation in holding that transfer of land in favour of any person who is not a state subject is prohibited under Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, 1995 (Bik), however, after issuance of ijazatnama in terms of notification dated 20th April, 1927, there is no such prohibition.
Consequently, this appeal is accepted. The judgments passed by the High Court District Judge/Registrar and Sub-Registrar are set declared null and void, of no legal effect and set aside.
The appellant is entitled to produce the original sale deed before the sub-Registrar for registration.