SYED MANZOOR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 27.12.1988 the Settlement Tehsildar of Anantnag mutated 5 kanals of land situated in village Anchidoora/Azadpora under Survey No. 500/min in favour of petitioners father under section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act (for short the Act) vide mutation No. 1795 in favour of petitioners father which was followed by mutation No. 1961 of 3.5.1995 attested under section 8 of the Act vesting ownership rights of the land in him as cultivating tenant of the land. On 22.9.1999 the respondent No.5 claiming to be the owner in possession of aforesaid land filed an appeal against aforesaid mutation orders before Commissioner Agrarian Reforms who over set the both vide his order dated: 9.8.2000 with a direction for restoration of the position of the land as it existed in revenue records from 1971 up to the date of first mutation. This order was challenged by petitioners before J&K Special Tribunal through a revision petition on various factual and legal grounds, which was dismissed on 26.6.2003 by the Tribunal.

(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby the petitioners have instituted this writ petition for quashment of orders passed by Special Tribunal and Commissioner Agrarian Reforms as aforesaid, on the ground that the mutations under section 4 and 8 of the Act were rightly attested by competent revenue officer in favour of petitioners father who was cultivating tenant of the land; while respondent No.5 being a city dweller of Srinagar was never in possession and that both the impugned orders were factually wrong and legally perverse as having been passed without application of mind with reference to order passed by Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, it has been specifically pleaded that 5th respondents appeal before him was badly hit by limitation which was wrongly condoned by him on the wrong premise, that time of limitation would start running from the date of knowledge of mutation and not the mutation itself which was further up -held by Tribunal again on the same wrong notion of law. It has also been pleaded that the appellate order impugned was passed without hearing petitioners.

(3.) IN his reply respondent No.5 who is the only contesting respondent in the case, others being official respondents, has stated that she was holding the land in her proprietary possession and the petitioners had only managed the mutations under section 4 and 8 of the Act in their favour by fraudulent manipulations in view whereof both the orders, appellate and revisional, were well founded in law and fact. During course of submissions counsel appearing for rival sides have reiterated the contents of their respective pleadings.