KAKA RAM Vs. RAJ KUMAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Assistant Commissioner (REV) by his order dated 31.12.1983 passed on mutation No.786 declared Shiv Ram (Predecessor-in-interest of Respondents No. 1 & 2) as tenant in Kharif 1971 onwards till 1983 and thereafter Tehsildar by mutation order dated 7.1.1984 as prospective owner under Sec. 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of the land comprising in Khasra No. 771/5 measuring 4 kanals & khasra No. 772/6 measuring 11 kanals & 18 marlas making total area of 15 kanals 18 marals situated at Muthi Tehsil Jammu and thereafter by mutation order dated 10.2.1984 of Tehsildar under Sec. 8 of the Act ownership rights were also conferred upon him. The ex-owner of the land was Lady Parmeshwari whose estate after death is being represented by Respondent No. 4 Jagdish Chopra and No. 5 Smt. Sham Mohini. On appeal against the mutations the Ld. Financial Commissioner remanded the matter back to Asstt. Commissioner for fresh enquiry. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 16.7.1990 confirmed the possession of said Shiv Ram over the land in question. This order was challenged again before the Joint Financial Commissioner in appeal. Ld . Joint Financial Commissioner however by his order dated 21.4.1993 held Kaka Ram (petitioner herein) to be the tenant of the land on crucial data kharif 1971, but the said order on being assailed before this Tribunal came to be set aside and this Tribunal remitted the case back for denovo enquiry on spot to the court below in terms of Rule 50 of Agrarian Rules.

(2.) Ld. Appellate Court below conducted the fresh enquiry and by its order dated 6.8.1998 held that Shiv Ram the respondent No. 1 was in cultivating possession of the land as a tenant under the ex-owners on the determinant date in respect of the land in issue measuring 15 kanals and 18 marlas. For holding so the Ld. Appellate Court in its order has observed as follows:-

(3.) The aforesaid order of the Ld. Appellate Court was challenged by Kaka Ram in revision before this Tribunal. This Tribunal however by its order dated 8.3.2000 upheld the order of the appellate court. The order of the Tribunal came to challenged in a writ petition OWP No. 271/2000 before the Honble High Court.