(1.) This is a revision petition against the order dated 29.8.2002 passed by the Addl. Dy. Commissioner Doda with powers of Comm. Agr. Reforms, whereby the appeal filed by the contesting respondents herein against mutation No. 2779 attested by Tehsildar Kishtwar on 10.12.1993 for land falling under khasra No. 959 total measuring 17 kanals 15 marlas situated in village Pochhal Teh. Kishtwar has been accepted and order passed on said mutation.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that both the parties are co-sharers (owners) of the land which is 'Banjar Qadeem on spot and some portion of it was under tenancy of one Bhagta in crucial date of Kharif 1971, so mutation under section 4 of the Agr. Reforms Act, 1976 was attested in favour of said Bhagta. On an appeal filed by the owner of the land namely Sain Lai, the then Joint Comm. Agr. Reforms Jammu accepted the said appeal set aside the mutation and remanded the case to Tehsildar Kishtwar for fresh inquiry and passing fresh orders. On coming to know about inquiry being held by the Tehsildar Kishtwar, the petitioner herein (Dina Nath) filed an application before the said Tehsildar as he was the interested party also being co-owner of the land. The Tehsildar Kishtwar held detailed inquiry in the matter and attested a fresh mutation No. 2779 in presence of father of contesting respondents (now dead) holding that the land under disputed in 'Banjar Qadeem on spot so exempted from the operation of Sec. 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. The Tehsildar Kishtwar also held that the land under dispute is in possession of Dina Nath. The facts of possession on spot over the land of Dina Nath was also admitted by the deceased father of contesting respondents, who was very much present on spot when mutation No. 2779 was attested and as a token of his presence on spot he signed on mutation in urdu. Aggrieved by the orders passed on mutation No. 2779 the respondents herein filed an appeal before the below court, who accepted the appeal and set aside the orders passed on mutation No. 2779. Now aggrieved by the orders passed by the below appellate court, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioner stated that land under dispute which is 'Banjar Qadeem on spot is in possession of petitioner as owner as per family settlement which fact was also admitted by the deceased father of the contesting respondents during attestation of mutation No. 2779. That the orders passed on mutation No. 1963 dated 19.03.1992 are ante dated as in pursuance of remand order of Joint Commissioner Agr. Reforms Act, Jammu the Tehsildar Kishtwar instead of passing fresh orders on mutation No. 1963 attested fresh No. 2779. He further alleged that the contesting respondents have close relations with the revenue officials as well as with the Additional Deputy Commissioner Doda, so all these officials/Officers hatched a conspiracy to attest ante dated mutation, just to give benefit to the contesting respondents. In support of his contention, the attorney holder of the petitioner has filed an affidavit alleging therein that contesting respondents have close relation with patwari namely Munshi Ram as well as Additional Deputy Commissioner Doda, Shri R.K Bhagat. He further stated that it is proved that just to give benefit to the contesting respondents, the below appellate court passed ex-parte order against the petitioner herein which is against the principles of natural justice and that as held by the Honble Supreme Court of India, the orders passed ex-parte against an interested person/party are non est and non-existent in the eyes of law and that it should totally be ignored. He also stated that the below appellate court has totally ignored the report of Tehsildar Kishtwar in which the Tehsildar reported to the appellate court that the land under dispute is 'Banjar Qadim and in possession of the petitioner herein. He also stated that ante dated mutation No. 1963 dated 19.03.1992 attested in favour of the contesting respondents herein was challenged in appeal before the appellate court, who accepted the appeal of the petitioner herein, set aside mutation No. 1963 dated 19.3.1992 and remanded the case to Tehsildar Kishtwar. The counsel for the petitioner further stated that the appellate court (Addl. Dy. Commissioner Doda with powers of Commissioner Agr. Reforms) intentionally and deliberately and deliberately ignored the existence of order of Additional Dy. Commissioner Doda with power of Commr. Agr. Reforms dated 14.9.1999, when he was very much in knowledge that this order existed. The counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court towards the grounds taken in the memorandum of revision petition and requested that revision petition may be accepted and orders passed by Addl. Dy. Commr. Doda dated 29.8.2002 and also frivolous and antedated orders passed on mutation No. 1963 dated 19.03.1992 may be set aside.