GHULAM QADIR MALIK Vs. TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners allege that they have been title holders in possession of land measuring 3 kanals and 9 marlas in survey No. 572 situated at Kullar Malikgund, Tehsil Shopian. In 1999 respondent No. 5 attempted to dispossess them on the ground that the land is mutated in his name as owner u/s 8 of J & K Agrarian Reforms Act (hereafter Act). On enquiry petitioners, came to know that this land is mutated u/s 4 of the Act on 16.3.1983 vide mutation order No. 476, followed by mutation order No. 494 dated 11.12.1987 u/s 8 of the Act, conferring ownership rights on respondent No. 5. Petitioners on coming to know -all'this, filed an appeal with application for cond9nation of delay before Additional Dy. Commissioner/Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Pulwama (respondent No. 2) on grounds taken thereto. The delay in filing appeal was not condoned and the application with appeal was dismissed on 4.1.2000 (Annexure-C). Against this order petitioners filed revision before J & K Special Tribunal (Respondent No. 1). However, the revision was dismissed on 26.2.2001 (Annexure-D). Petitioner is challenging the above two mutation orders and the orders of dismissal of the application with appeal and the revision, as above, in this petition.

(2.) The counsel submits that the mutations u/ss 4 and 8 of the Act have been recorded at the back of the petitioners. Petitioners have not been heard in the matter. The Agrarian Reforms Commissioner while disposing of the application for condonation of delay and appeal has not allowed the petitioners to make out a cause for condonation on evidence. The civil suit between the parties is filed by respondent No. 5 against the petitioner in the court of Sub Judge Shopian. The petitioners got knowledge of the suit in November, 1998, they received summons from the Court. So far as the statement dated 4.5.1983 relied by the Agrarian Commissioner to impute knowledge to the petitioners about the possession and mutation and passing of title under the Agrarian Reforms Act is concerned, the same could not have been looked into as it was only photostat copy. Niether the original nor attested copy of the statement was produced. The revisional forum also has not addressed the core issue of legality of the orders passed by the mutating Revenue Officers as also the Agrarian Commissioner. The sufficiency of the ground for allowing the application for condonation of delay and to entertain the appeal was not also focused on by the revisional forum.

(3.) Counsel for respondents Mr. Lone in reply affidavit as also in his oral submissions defended the action of mutating officers, and the impugned orders of Agrarian Commissioner and the Spl. Tribunal. The counsel submits that the mutations u/ss 4 and 8 of the Act in favour of respondent No. 5 in respect of the land in question have been effected within jurisdiction and in accordance with law. The petitioners despite knowledge of the mutation filed appeal with condonation application before the Agrarian Commissioner after a lapse of more than 16 years and that too when driven by the greed of making money on account of escalation in prices of real estate. The application was rightly dismissed after the statement dated 4.5.1983 recorded by Naib Tehsildar in proceedings regarding dispute between the parties concerning the trees standing around the land in question wherein the possession of respondent No. 5 over the land for more than 30 years, was admitted. The parties are also litigating in civil court where the land in question is subject matter of the suit. The suit has been instituted by respondent No. 5 in 1990. The civil court has also issued an interim injunction order forbidding petitioners to interfere with the possession of respondent No. 5 as an interim measure. Against the order appeal is pending before District Judge Pulwlama. All this is to indicate respondent No. 5 has been in possesion for decades and orders of mutation first u/s 4 of the Act and then u/s 8 of the Act is within the para-meters of Agrarian Reforms Law. The impugned mutations are not vitiated. The appellate Court as also the revisional court have found that no reasonable cause is made out to warrant condonation of delay and no question of public importance was involved for adjudication in the matter and therefore, the dealy is declined to be condoned and appeal dismissed alongwith application. The counsel also submits that the petitioners are guilty of laches and delay which would disentitle them to any relief. Matter having been duty examined by the above prescribed forums cannot be re-opened in writ petition.