1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The main question to be determined in this case is whether the respondent No. 3 had the jurisdiction under the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 2007 to pass orders which resulted in the filing of the present petition? It is contended that" after the coming into force of the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as 2007 Act) to the extent of inconsistency, stood repealed and that no orders could have been passed in favour of respondents 4 to 10. Learned counsel for contesting respondents relying upon SRO 667 of 1973 dated: 27.l2.1973 have contended that the argument is misconceived and that respondent No. 3 was clothed with the powers to adjudicate upon the disputes raised before him.

2. To appreciate the rival contentions between the parties some of the facts necessary to be noticed in the case are: that one Glodhu was recorded owner of the land comprised in survey No: 46 measuring 7 kanals 11 marlas in village Chak Manga Rakwal, Tehsil Samba. A portion of the said land was taken over by the Central Public Works Department for the construction of Jammu Pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document