RITA DEVI Vs. GHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dtd. 14/10/2013 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu. By virtue of the said order, the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, Samba and remanded the matter to the said authority on the ground that the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms had not actually proceeded in consonance with law in deciding the appeal and application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal jointly. The direction upon remand is that the application for condonation of delay be first decided and only if the application is allowed, then to decide the appeal on merits.

(2.) Before the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, the petitioner and some of their predecessors-in-interest had filed an appeal challenging the two mutation orders of the Naib Tehsildar bearing No. 212 under Sec. 4 of the Act dtd. 30/9/1981, and 312 under Sec. 8 of the Act dtd. 18/3/2003, whereby the mutations under the aforementioned Sec. of the Agrarian Reforms Act had been affected. The grievance of the appellants before the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms was that the mutations were attested behind their back and without visiting the spot, which was the requirement as per the Rules. Since the appeal was time- barred, it was also accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, appears to have visited the spot on 11/11/2010 under Rule 50 of the Agrarian Reforms Rules, 1977, recorded the statement of farmers, ex-owners, appellants and respondents in the appeal and came to the conclusion that the mutations were attested without visiting the spot and in the absence of the appellants and without hearing them. It was in those circumstances after having been satisfied that the mutations attested were ex-parte and without visiting on spot, the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms was satisfied that it was a fit case for condonation of delay and accordingly, by condoning the delay, allowed the appeal and set aside the mutations in question. The matter was, accordingly, remanded to the Tehsildar Settlement, Samba, to pass orders afresh.

(3.) The aforementioned order came to be challenged by the respondents before the Tribunal who by virtue of order impugned set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms primarily on the ground that a joint order could not have been passed and that the application for condonation of delay has to be decided first. It is precisely this order that has been questioned in the present petition.