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 u/s 4 & 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. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Taking proceedings till date in a capsule, two things percolate, first the finding of the fact returned by Commissioner Agrarian Reforms after examining the village community etc, and up holding the mutations purporting to have been attested under sections 4 and 8 of the Act, and, secondly, the opinion of Special tribunal that no agrarian relation whatsoever existed between the parties. Under law (S. 21 of Agrarian Reforms Act) the revisional jurisdiction of Special tribunal can be exercised to examine a matter involving a question of law or of public importance, which by implication excludes the re-appraisal/re-evaluation of materials purely concerning factual aspects, otherwise than to enable determination of a law point. Instantly however the tribunal appears to have misdirected itself by entering into determination of a factual aspect while assessing the materials found on spot enquiry found on enquiry to be running counter to position on spot. It would be appropriate to observe that Commissioner Agrarian Reforms being the highest functionary in the entire agrarian reforms machinery, his spot finding regarding factual situation of a case can hardly be dislodged, much-less in exercise of the revisional powers restricted to determination of the questions of law and public importance only.

4. Accordingly, to put the matter in a straight jacket, the following question is formulated for consideration of the tribunal to conclude this matter.

Q. "Whether in view of finding of the fact purporting to have been returned by Commissioner Agrarian Reforms in the matter, no agrarian relation existed between the parties in terms of the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act and Rules, and what would be effect thereof upon respective claims/rights of the parties."

The Tribunal shall be at liberty to formulate any other question of law or public importance if required.

5. Accordingly the petition is allowed and the matter remanded back to Special Tribunal for determination of the question and final adjudication. All orders

Click Here to Read the rest of this document