ALTAF HUSSAIN Vs. J&K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved of the order dtd. 2/8/2011 (for short 'the order impugned) passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dtd. 29/8/2002 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner Doda, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of the order impugned, on the following grounds:

(2.) The respondent No. 2 has filed the response wherein it has been stated that both the mutations under Ss. 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, were attested exp-parte without any notice to the respondent No.2 or his predecessor-in-interest. Neither the respondent No.2 nor his father was having any knowledge about the same. It is further stated that the land comprising survey No.1523 situated in patwar village kishtwar originally belonged to the recorded owners Natha and other Co-sharers. As the family members of the respondent No.2 were Purohits by profession, the said land had been given by way of Sankalp to the great grandfather of the respondent No. 2. The land always continued to be in actual physical possession of the respondent No. 2's forefathers, father and respondent No. 2 till the land was embroiled in the proceedings under Sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code primarily because one Khursheed Ahmed Dev wanted to grab both the lands of the respondent No. 2 covered by survey number 1523 of the Village Kishtwar and survey number 2179 of the Village Matta. The petitioners managed and manipulated mutations under Sec. 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, without any notice or without the knowledge of the respondent No. 2 or his father. It is further stated that the order being only a remand order and the rights of the parties are yet to be decided by the competent authority, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground only.

(3.) Mr. R Koul, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the appeal filed by the predecessor in interest of the respondent No.2 was hopelessly barred by limitation and that the predecessor in interest of the respondent No.2 and also the respondent No.2 had been changing their stand time and again, as in the proceedings under Sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the predecessor in interest of the respondent No. 2 had raised the dispute in respect of the land comprising under survey number 2179 at village Matta and subsequently the stand was changed and claim was made in respect of land comprising survey number 1523 of the Village Kishtwar. Mr Koul further argued that the appeal was decided by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Doda without serving the petitioners particularly when the respondent No.2 or his father had no locus to maintain the appeal as neither they were the owners nor in cultivating possession of the land in question.