Per : S.K. Gupta, J.

1. Mutation No. 1908 in respect of land located in village Paloura was attested by the Tehsildar, Jammu on 15th May, 1986, whereby entry of cultivation was corrected by entering the name of the petitioner as tenant. Against this order of mutation and correction of the entry, an appeal came to be preferred before the Joint Financial commissioner by the respondents. An order for maintaining status-quo on the spot was passed by way of an ad-interim relief in the said appeal. During the currency of the proceedings in the said appeal, Tehsildar Jammu by virtue of mutation No. 3752, made another order dated 17th May, 1991 in terms of section 12 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, vesting the proprietary rights on the petitioner in respect of the land aggregating 2 Kanals and 1 marla; out of 6 kanals and 4 marlas of land and allowed the resumption of the remaining land by Shri Buti Sing. Both the cases pertain to the same land, between the same parties and thus were clubbed by transferring from Joint Financial Commissioner to Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner after hearing the parties and scanning the material including the Revenue Record held that the mutations are contrary to the spirit of Agrarian Reforms Act and set at naught the objective as espoused in the Act to benefit the tillers. Rather the mutation No. 3752 has been used as a subterfuge for introducing new tenancy and to circumvent the provisions of law and Financial Commissioner set aside the mutations in respect of the land contained in khasra No. 161 Min. measuring 6 kanals and 4 marlas in village Paloura, in allowing the appeals.

2. Against the order of the Financial Commissioner with powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, J&K, Jammu dated 12th March, 1997, the present petitioner, who happened to be respondent before the Appellate Authority, preferred a revision before the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal to impugn its correctness.

3. The contention raised by the petitioner before the Revisional Court, however, did not merit acceptance and the revision was dismissed in observing as under:

"The base of the contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is built on the assumption that co-sharer Buti Singh was in possession of his share of land which tantamounts of partition and so other co-sharers and recorded tenants has lost interest in the land.

However, such assumption has been repelled by the Ld. Court below by observing that all the co-sharers has not been associated with the proceedings by the Tehsildar, the persons recorded in cultivating possession has not been heard, no evidence was adduced to establish that the land had been partitioned and stood included in the exclusive share of Buti Singh alone. And therefore no proper enquiry stood conducted. This position is being sought to be controverted only on oral submission not supported by any record. Admission of Buti Singh alone that the petitioner was cultivating the land as tenant cannot bind other co-sharers. The denial of opportunity of being heard to other co-sharers vitiates the mutation order. As the petitioner was not found to have been validly recorded in cultivation through the impugned mutation order the agreement and thereon mutation u/s 12 could also not be attested. Ld. Court below for very cogent and sound reasons set aside the orders impugned before the Court below."

4. The main plank of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the land covered under Khasra No. 161 Min was jointly owned by Buti Singh, now deceased survived by respondents No. 8 to 12, Rashpal Singh and the other brother, namely, Kamal Singh who died in the year 1985 and is survived by respondents No. 3 to 6 but still Buti Singh and other co-sharers were in possession of their respective shares. According to the petitioner, the land was in his cultivating possession in Kharif 1971 as tenant but was contrary to the recorded position in Girdawari. It was further stated that the ex-landlords a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document