BHARAT BHUSHAN Vs. J&K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has called in question order dtd. 5/1/2015 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu ("the Tribunal") in a revision petition titled Bharat Bhushan v. Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property, Rajouri and another, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and has up-held the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Rajouri, ( "the appellate authority") dtd. 15/3/2004.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts, as projected by the petitioner is this petition are that, the land falling under Khasra No. 86/3 of Village Padikar Tehsil and District Rajouri was allotted to the petitioner as a displaced person from Pakistan. The petitioner, on the basis of being in possession of the land as allottee thereof, was conferred the proprietary rights under Sec. 3-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 ("the Act of 1976"). Mutation No. 37 was attested in this regard by the Naib Tehsildar, Rajouri on 4/12/1996. The respondent No.2 assailed the mutation after seven years by filing an appeal before the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3, the appellate authority, without formally condoning the delay, set aside the mutation vide its order dtd. 15/3/2004. The order of the appellate authority was challenged by the petitioner by way of revision petition before the Respondent No.1 on the ground that the appellate authority had passed the order impugned without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and without appreciating the real controversy, but the Tribunal dismissed the revision petition vide order dtd. 5/1/2015, hence the present writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition is opposed by respondent No.2, who, in its objections, has taken the stand that in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two forums below, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is the contention of the respondent No.2 that both the forums below have found that the subject land was in possession of the Army prior to Kharief 1971 and that, it was recorded as "Banjar Qadeem". That being the position, the subject land was exempted from the operation of the Act of 1976. It is contended by Mr. F. A. Natnoo, appearing for respondent No.2, that mutation attested by the Naib Tehsildar, which was subject matter of challenge in the appeal before the appellate authority, was decided at the back of the respondent No.2 and, therefore, was rightly interfered with by the appellate authority.