ABDUL MAJEED MIR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dtd. 10/6/2014, passed by Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Srinagar (hereafter for short 'the Tribunal"), whereby the revision petition filed by respondent No.4 against order dtd. 10/11/1999 passed by respondent No.2 has been set aside with a direction to the said authority to decide the appeal afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

(2.) It appears that mutation No.295 of Village Saloosa Baramulla was attested by Naib Tehsildar Baramulla in respect of land under the ownership of respondent No.4 under Sec. 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal against the said mutation before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Baramulla and vide order dtd. 17/8/1994 the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner directed the Tehsildar concerned to conduct denovo enquiry. Accordingly, the Tehsildar concerned conducted denovo enquiry and passed mutation No.657 dtd. 15/7/1996 in favour of father of the petitioner. Against mutation No.657 dtd. 15/7/1996 respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before the Dy.Commissioner-Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Baramulla (respondent No.2) and the said appeal was dismissed by respondent No.2 by virtue of order dtd. 10/11/1999, thereby upholding mutation No.657 dtd. 15/7/1996. Respondent No.4 challenged the aforesaid order of respondent No.2 by way of a revision petition before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of respondent No.2, whereafter the appeal was remanded to said respondent for its fresh decision upon hearing the parties.

(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dtd. 10/6/2014 passed by the Tribunal on the grounds that the same has been passed without application of mind. It has been further contended that the Tribunal has not taken into account the fact that father of the petitioner was alive upto the year 2000, as such contention of respondent No.4, that mutation had been attested in favour of a dead person is contrary to the record. It has been further contended that the order passed by respondent No.2 in the appeal against mutation No.657 dtd. 15/7/1996 is in accordance with law and the same did not warrant any interference by the Tribunal in its revisional jurisdiction. It has also been contended that the learned Tribunal has ignored the material on record and it has also ignored the fact that the matter was posted for arguments at the instance of counsel for respondent No.4.