1. The litigating process in between the parties is likely to complete four decades. Methods and process adopted by the petitioners for this prolongation is compounded by the revenue officers at the level of Tehsildar and Assistant Settlement officer. There have been rounds of litigation which are now required to be set at rest.

2. The precise flash back of the factual matrix for proper adjudication is required to be noticed.

3. One Mst. Azizi widow of Wahab Najar had mortgaged with possession, the land measuring 13 kanals and 13 marlas covered by survey nos. 302, 369, 370 and 371 situated in Village Choyan Tehsil Kulgam. Mortgage deed seem to have been executed in favour of one Shaban Najar on 20.12.2004 Bikrami which corresponds to year 1948 A.D. Mortgage was for unlimited period of time.

4. Mst. Azizi died in the year 1964, thereafter in the year 1970, collaterals instituted suit before the Court of Munsiff at Kulgam wherein mortgage deed was challenged being fraudulent. Petitioner (Mortgagee) contended that the land was under their occupation pursuant to valid deed of mortgage. The proceedings of the suit continued but in the meantime, in the year 1976, Agrarian Reforms Act came into force. Munsiff, Kulgam, seems to have remitted the case to Collector. Collector, vide his order dated 11.11.1983 came to the conclusion that the matter can be adjudicated upon by Civil Court. Same was upheld by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner vide his order dated 03.04.1985 Special Tribunal in exercise of revisional powers, vide order dated 01.08.1996, remanded the case to the Assistant Settlement Officer/Collector with direction to conclude adjudication in terms of Section 10 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act. Assistant Settlement Officer vide his order dated 04.11.1997 came to the conclusion that mortgage was not subsisting on the date when the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 came into force, therefore, position of the petitioners cannot be disturbed. This order was challenged before Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, who vide his order dated 06.04.1999, remanded the case opining therein that the issue of subsistence of mortgage is established, therefore, Assistant Settlement officer is directed to dispose of the application for redemption of mortgage under Section 10 of the Agrarian Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act").

5. Order dated 06.04.1999, passed by Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, was challenged by medium of Revision petition before the Special Tribunal. Special Tribunal, vide its order dated 30.01.2001, concluded that the revision was devoid of merit, and dismissed the same but at the same time, while parting with the file, for advancement of interests of justice, made observations to work as guideline to Assistant Settlement Officer for disposal of the matter.

6. Dissatisfied with the order dated 30.01.2001 passed by Special Tribunal, writ jurisdiction has been invoked.

7. Thoughtfully considering the submissions as have been advanced by either side as well as the record available, certain facts are admitted i.e. execution of mortgage deed for unlimited period by Mst. Azizi then her death in the year 1964. The position of the petitioner and proforma respondents could not be refuted having stepped in the shoes of mortgagor and the position of contesting respondents having stepped into the shoes of mortgagee.

8. Consistent view of the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner as well as Special Tribunal that the mortgage subsisted on the date of enforcement of the "Act" is fully established though contesting respondent while filing the suit had challenged the validity of mortgage deed but petitioners and proforma respondents in their pleadings had taken the positive stand that they are in possession of the land pursuant to the deed of mortgage. Had the mortgage been restricted in point of time, then it could be said that with the expiry of time, mortgage has come to an end. The mortgage being unlimited cannot be stated to be not subsisting. When mortg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document