The Debate Over Fard Issuance, Farmers’ Rights, and Judicial Authority
🧩 A Clash Between Law and Governance
The long-standing issue of selling land allotted under LB-6/C of 1958 and S-432 of 1966 has now become more than a matter of land — it has become a debate on the rule of law itself in Jammu & Kashmir.
On one hand, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has categorically upheld citizens’ ownership rights and permitted issuance of Fard for sale of such land.
On the other, the Revenue Department’s latest clarification continues to bar alienation, effectively defying clear judicial orders.
So — who prevails? The court of law, or the court of bureaucracy?
Let’s unpack this conflict.
👨🌾 LB-6/C of 1958: Land to the Local Cultivators
Issued on June 5, 1958, this historic order aimed to settle long-pending tenancy claims after the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act.
It regularized cultivation rights for locals farming State land during Kharif 1957–58.
Highlights:
-
Beneficiaries: Local inhabitants with recorded cultivation and permanent residence in J&K.
-
Ceiling: Up to 100 kanals, including owned or occupied land.
-
Rights: Granted tenant-at-will status, later eligible for full ownership.
-
Impact: Brought economic stability to around 12,000 families.
🔒 S-432 of 1966: Tenants Became Owners
On June 3, 1966, the J&K Government issued G.O. S-432, converting those LB-6 tenants-at-will into owners.
Core Details:
-
Kashmir: 2 acres Abi or 4 acres Khushki
-
Jammu: 4 acres Abi or 8 acres Khushki
-
Clause 4: Prohibited sale (alienation) without prior Government permission
-
Operations paused in 1989, revived in 2007 to clear pendencies
-
Impact: Empowered roughly 15,000 families
At its core, this reform fulfilled the dream of land to the tiller — but the “no-sale” clause planted a seed of future conflict.
⚖️ Three Judgments, One Voice: Court Clears Sale Rights
Over the last decade, three separate High Court judgments — by different benches, under different petitions — have arrived at the same conclusion:
🟢 Landowners under LB-6/S-432 can sell their land; the restriction has lost legal force.
1️⃣ Mohammad Akbar Shah vs State (AIR 2017 J&K 14)
The Court ruled that once ownership is conferred, the order “outlives its life” and cannot impose restrictions inconsistent with ownership.
“After becoming absolute owner of the land, restriction could not be imposed for its alienation… Such a condition could only be imposed by legislation, not by executive order.”
2️⃣ Angrez Singh vs UT of J&K (AIR 2023 J&K 533)
Reaffirmed that the right to alienate is inherent in ownership; executive conditions cannot override proprietary law.
3️⃣ Mohan Lal Angral vs UT of J&K (WP(C) 2651/2024, judgment dated 04.09.2025)
Justice Sanjay Dhar went a step further — he directed the authorities to issue Fard Intikhab to the petitioners, clearly holding that refusal to issue Fard “is not sustainable in law.”
Three verdicts. No stay. No contrary ruling.
Legally, the position seemed settled.
🏢 Yet the Government Says: “No, You Still Can’t Sell”
In a stunning move, the Revenue Department, through its communication No. REV-Sett/35/2023 dated 20.02.2025, addressed to the Inspector General of Registrations, stated:
“As on date, alienation of land allotted under G.O. No. LB-6/C followed by grant of rights under G.O. No. S-432 cannot take place.”
In effect, this administrative circular overrides three binding High Court judgments — without any stay order from a higher forum.
The directive explicitly bars issuance of Fard for sale or transfer, leaving tehsildars, sub-registrars, and landowners trapped between judicial clarity and administrative defiance.
🔍 Is the Government Defying the Judiciary?
The answer depends on how you interpret the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
When a court declares that the restriction on alienation under S-432 is legally void, it is binding on the Government — unless stayed or overturned by a higher court.
By continuing to enforce the 1966 restriction through its circular, the Revenue Department appears to act in direct contradiction of the judicial mandate.
Legal experts argue this constitutes “executive overreach”, raising serious questions:
-
Can a department “pause” the effect of a High Court judgment on its own?
-
Does “awaiting appeal” justify not implementing a binding order?
-
What happens to the citizen’s right to property and equality under Article 300A of the Constitution?
⚔️ The Rule of Law vs. Rule by File
The debate isn’t just about Fard — it’s about respect for judicial authority.
If executive clarifications can nullify court judgments, it undermines:
The High Court’s 2025 order was clear, reasoned, and unambiguous. Yet, by continuing to deny Fard issuance, the Government’s stance effectively says:
“We acknowledge the judgment, but we won’t follow it.”
This sets a dangerous precedent — where policy preference overrides the Constitution.
🧾 The Practical Fallout
For lakhs of cultivators and their descendants, this contradiction has real-world impact:
-
Land deals stuck: Sale deeds cannot be registered without Fard.
-
Loans denied: Banks refuse mortgage without valid revenue extract.
-
Legal limbo: Landowners must file fresh petitions to get what the Court already allowed.
Meanwhile, local officers face fear of disciplinary action for obeying the Court instead of the Government’s circular — creating a bureaucratic paralysis.
💡 What Should Be Done Now
-
🏛️ The Government must either comply with the High Court orders or appeal before the Supreme Court. Silence is not an option.
-
📜 The Revenue Department should withdraw or revise its February 2025 clarification to align with judicial directives.
-
⚖️ Citizens affected can file contempt petitions or seek fresh writs citing the 2025 Mohan Lal Angral judgment.
-
🤝 A unified policy should be framed — balancing farmers’ rights with legitimate regulatory concerns.
🧭 The Bigger Picture
This controversy goes beyond LB-6 and S-432. It tests whether the rule of law truly governs J&K’s land administration — or whether file notings and clarifications continue to trump judicial authority.
The High Court has spoken thrice.
The Government remains unmoved.
And the citizens wait, trapped between the ink of old orders and the silence of new policy.
🪶 JKRevenueGyaan Opinion
The refusal to issue Fard despite explicit High Court orders is not just a policy issue — it is a constitutional concern.
The Government’s reluctance to implement binding judgments erodes confidence in governance and weakens respect for the judiciary.
The law must speak louder than the circular.
📚 Reference Documents
-
Mohan Lal Angral vs. UT of J&K & Ors., WP(C) No. 2651/2024, Judgment dated 04.09.2025.
-
Angrez Singh vs. UT of J&K & Ors., AIR 2023 J&K 533.
-
Mohammad Akbar Shah vs. State & Ors., AIR 2017 J&K 14.
-
Govt. of J&K Revenue Dept. Circular No. REV-Sett/35/2023, dated 20.02.2025.
✅ Conclusion
🔹 Legally: Sale of LB-6/S-432 land is permissible; the Court has spoken.
🔹 Administratively: The Government refuses to implement it.
🔹 Result: A constitutional standoff — where the rule of law hangs by a thread of bureaucracy.
The question remains:
🕊️ Will the Government obey the law — or continue to rewrite it in its own office files?
Comments
Post a Comment