1) Brief facts of this case are these. One Mst. Ghakhar widow of Jyoti owned land measuring 26 kanals 16 marlas comprised in khasra no. 80/1 situated in village Parthal Teh. Reasi. She had executed a will dated 6.3.87 in favour of Shankar, the petitioner herein. Since, he had no issue, therefore, the petitioner started cultivating the land and was recorded in possession as Gair Mareesi Lagan Nakadi Hasb Parta De Webaza" Waysiat. Tehsildar Reasi by order dated 12.6.76 attested mutuation no. 468 in favoui of the petitioner holding him to be In continuous possession of the land since 1961 as tenant. This order was challenged by Mst. Ghakhar in appeal before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Reasi who dismissed the same on 1.2.78 holding that revocation of the will does not alter the actual possession of the land. It appears Mst. Ghakhar re-gained possession of the land and the petitioner approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Collector) Reasi for restoration of the same. By his order dated 3.1.81 the SDM (Collector) Agrarian Reforms directed the restoration of possession in favour of the petitioner. This order was set aside by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner on 4.10.82 who remanded the case for fresh enquiry. By his order dated 10.2.84,Sub Divisional Magistrate in exercise of powers as Collector Agrarian Reforms directed the Tehsildar to correct entry of Kharif 1971. By the same order he directed that possession should be restored to Mst. Ghakhar u/s 27 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. This order was challenged before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner who dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide his order dated 9.8.86. Opertive portion of the order reads as under:

"The perusal of the record available on the file reveals that the land in dispute was owned by Hari Ram, Amar Nath sons of Lakhu and held in personal cultivation by one Indra S/o Sarno 1/4th, Munshi S/o Kejoo 1/4th and Mst. Gakhar w/o Jyoti 1/2 (respondent) and the entire land is recorded to be under the cultivating possession of the respondent. The record further reveals that the respondent executed a Registered will dated 6.3.67 in favour of the appellant. The recital in the will clearly indicater that the appellant was appointed as an hair by the respondent who was to succeed to immovable and movable property of the respondent after her death. It does not contain any recitle that the appellant was cultivating the land as a tenant at the time of the execution of the will or prior thereto. The entries in the khasra Girdawari from Rabi 1967 have been made in the name of the appellant, in pursuance of the will. Even in Kharif 1971 the girdawari entries which have been verified by the then Circle Officer indicate the possession of the land by the appellant in pursuance of the "will". These entries continue upto 1986. In Rabi 1977 the land is recorded to be under the cultivation of the respondent and the entry in Kharif 1977 states that "will" executed by the respondent in 1967 has been revoked by her through a registered document dated 31.3.76. For the foregoing reasons the appeal which has otherwise no force is hereby dismissed, however, the order of the SDM so far it related to the exchange of land in lieu of the land under house is hereby set-aside".

2) No reasons have been given for dismissing the appeal. It appears revocation of the will made all differences and the appellate authority did not deem it proper to consider the import of possession of the petitioner in Kharif 1971.

3) Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached Special Tribunal by filing revision petition no. 417 dated 23.10.86. He had earlier filed revision petition against the order dated 4.10.82 passed by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner also. Mst. Ghakhar also filed revision petition against the order of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner dated 9.8.86. All these revision petitions were decided by the Special Tribunal by a common order dated 29.12.92. Revision Petition No. 138/82