Aggrieved of the order dated 2-12-1996 passed by Member, J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar in exercise of its revisional powers under section 21(2) of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challanging the same.

2. Petitioner claims to be the tenant of the respondents 5 to 12 and Sattar, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 9 to 12, prior to Kharif 1971. His case as projected before the courts below was that entry regarding his possession was not reflected in the concerned revenue record and accordingly he applied for correction of entry through `Sahti Kasht in the year 1983. The Tehsildar Chadura who initiated the proceedings for correction of entry, summoned the respondents 5 and 6 and Sattar, the common encestor of respondents 7 to 12 who presented affidavits before him and also recorded their statements, admitting the claim of the petitioner of being in possession of the land measuring 13 Kanals and 17 marlas comprising of survey Nos. 497/ Min (6 Kanals 4 marlas), 501/Min (4 Kanals 2 marlas) and 503/ Min (3 Kanals and 1 marla) situated at Barwa tehsil Chadura. On the basis of admission, of the owners in respect to actual possession of the petitioner in Kharif 1971, the crucial period for conferment of benefits under the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, the Tehsildar Chadura, recorded and attested mutation No. 457 dated 14-5-1983.

3. It appears that private respondents and their predecessor Sattar resiled from their affidavits and admission made before Tehsildar and challanged the mutation No. 457 before respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 18-10-1994, dismissed the appeal and up-held the mutation attested in favour of the petitioner. The appellate authority was of the view that the mutation having been attested by Tehsildar on the basis of admission of the appellants before him, the appeal was not competent. He applied the anology as contained in section 96(3) of the code of Civil Procedure which bars an appeal against a consent decree.

4. The order dated 18.10.1994 of Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, the appellate authority became subject matter of revision before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, who set aside the mutation No. 457 dated 14-5-1983 as also the order dated 18.10.1994 passed by the appellate authority. The revisional authority examined the issue afresh by appreciating the evidence recorded by the Tehsildar during mutation proceedings and came to the conclusion that the finding of the appellate authority (Joint Agrarian Commissioner) that the petitioner consented for the change of the girdawari of the year 1971 is wrongly recorded. He also came to the conclusion that the question of title was involved, question of consideration amount of Rs. 39,000/- was involved as also question of passing of title was involved, therefore, girdawari of 1971 could not have been changed. These findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal have not been even raised in the memo of the revision nor the same were raised before the appellate authority and Tehsildar. It is this order of the revisional authority which is under challange before this court.

5. The main contention of Mr. G.A. Lone, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner is that the Tribunal exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reversing the order of appellate authority. Particular reference is made to the observations and findings of the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has took upon itself burden of re-examining the evidence and re-appreciating the same to arrive at a conclusion regarding the factum of actual physical possession in Kharif 1971. It is contended that the scope of revision as provided under section 21(2) of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act is confined only to a question of law or public interest and sicne neither any question of law nor of any public interest was involved in the revision pettion, hence the learned Member of the Tribunal was not competent to interfer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document