LAWS(J&K)-2007-6-3

MOHD. SULTAN Vs. STATE

Decided On June 04, 2007
MOHD. SULTAN Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and respondent No. 5 claim to be in cultivating possession of the land in question, to each others exclusion, which locked them in agrarian litigation spreading over vast span of time. In the first round the matter ultimately landed in Special Tribunal where from it was remitted to Commissioner Agrarian Reforms with the direction that he shall visit the spot personally and hold an enquiry in presence of the parties and return a finding regarding earlier mutations attested Under Section 4 and 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act in favour of petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner went on spot and after examining records, the parties and village community, gave a finding that on relevant cut of date, i.e. Kharif 1971, petitioners were in cultivating possession of the land and, accordingly, upheld mutations purporting to have been attested under sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. This finding was challenged by respondent before Special Tribunal on the ground that it was not based on factual position on spot, who set it aside with observation that in facts of the case no tenant -landlord relation existed between the parties.

(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby, petitioners challenge the same through this writ petition. During course of arguments petitioners counsel contended that in view of the factual conclusions returned by concerned Commissioner after spot verification it was not open for the ld. Tribunal to opine contrarily upon landlord/tenant relation between the parties; while counsel for respondent No. 5 has argued that petitions are out of court on two counts; first, that petitioners are not tenants of the land which they claim to hold under an agreement to sell, and secondly, that the learned tribunal was well within his power to opine upon absence of Agrarian relation between the parties. He has also stated that the possession of the land under reference too is disputed.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , to put the matter in a straight jacket, the following question is formulated for consideration of the tribunal to conclude this matter.