The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the findings of the mutation allotting authority and the absence of challenge to the ownership rights claimed by the appellant's predecessor.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal owes its origin to the mutations, effected by the Tehsildar Udhampur, under sections 4 and 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, vide No.603 of 1974 reflected in order dated 29.11.1985 and No. 659 dated 29.3.1986 respectively, conferring the ownership rights on the appellant herein, in respect of the land, measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas, comprising survey No. 180-min, situate at village Sundrani, Tehsil and District Udhampur, (for brevity subject matter of the lis). The said mutations are founded on the conclusions that Ram Chand was the owner of 92 kanals and 4 marlas of land, out of which 23 kanals and 14 marlas were under tenancy of the appellant Bahadur Singh, as gathered from the orders and conceded to by Ram Chand. Being aggrieved, the mutations were questioned by medium of an appeal before the Director Land Records Jammu, having the appellate powers of the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (for short Commissioner) but of no avail, consequently, challenged before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal (hereinafter Tribunal) but in vain. Both the judgments of dismissal of Appeal and Revision dated 9.12.1994 and 11.12.1996 by the Commissioner and the Tribunal respectively, became subject matter of Writ Petition No. OWP 79/97 at the instance of the private respondents herein, which was allowed by judgment dated 2.6.2000. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the writ court, by the affected respondent in the writ petition, appellant herein. The tenant namely Bahadur Singh (the predecessor in interest of the ex land owner Ram Chand), beneficiary of the mutations (appellant herein) will be referred to as "APPELLANT" and the persons claiming to be the owners of the land (appellants before the Commissioner), Petitioners in the Revision Petition (before the Tribunal), Writ Petitioners before the writ court and respondents in this Letters Patent Appeal as "WRIT PTITIONERS".

2. A bare perusal of the judgment reveals that the learned single judge was much persuaded for interference by expression " ...... the appellant does not enjoy locus standi ..... " used by the Commissioner in his order and these words have been interpreted by the writ court virtually to mean "no cause of action". What the Commissioner actually meant, the reading of word locus standi needs to be read in the context it has been used. Merely reading the word locus standi in isolation of the context is not enough and such reading does not satisfy the requirement of law. What is necessary, is to read the whole para in its entirety wherein expression locus standi is used. To achieve the objective relevant para of the Commissioners judgment is extracted.

"........ There is no substantial evidence/ground to show that the appellant enjoy any locus standi over the land under appeal. The record available on the file makes it amply clear that kh. No. 180 measuring 23k-14m. from North side Shamilat Deh too has been kept in claim of Ram Chand owner. The appellant does not figure any where......"

3. Read as a whole it is manifest from the judgment of the Commissioner that he wants to convey that the claim of the writ petitioner is bereft of reason, logic and is not founded on any evidence. He means further to say that the material available establishes ownership of Ram Chand and tenancy rights of the respondent. This is in what background the absence of locus standi has been used by the writ court and nothing more. In that view of the matter, with respects, we record our disapproval to the view taken by the writ court.

4. What has further prevailed on the Writ Court, is the claim of the writ petitioners that the subject matter of the lis is "Shamilat land". To sustain the view taken, the learned counsel for the private respondents has made a similar oral submission, claiming entitlement to own and possess it proportionately. To deal with the issue, the relevant observation of the writ court is reproduced here