1. The Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal Act, 1988, exercising powers which vested in the Government under section 21 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, hereinafter to be referred as the, "Act", for short, set aside Mutation Nos. 1017 and 1018 attested under sections 4 and 8 respectively of the Act, in respect of land measuring 12 Kanal 17 Marlas, comprised in Khasra No. 873, situated at village Kewal, Kotranka-Rajouri, and the orders passed in this respect by Assistant Commissioner (R), Rajouri on October 26, 2002 and October 28, 2002 and by the Financial Commissioner Revenue/Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu, in Appeal, on March 09, 2007.

2. The Petitioners, Munshi Khan and Talab Hussain have filed this Writ Petition questioning the Special Tribunals abovementioned order, on the ground that the Revisional power, exercised by the Tribunal, was without jurisdiction, in that, the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, 1976 would not permit the Revisional Authority to interfere with the orders passed under the Act, unless however, a question of law or public interest, was involved in the case, which, according to the petitioners counsel, did not arise in the present case.

3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

4. The Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, has set aside the orders, impugned before it, on the ground that the petitioners had failed to place any material before the Authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, to prove them to be either the tenants or the lawful cultivators of the land, and that the Mutations were attested in the absence of the respondents, who, recorded as owners in the Revenue records, in the year 1971, were entitled to a hearing in the matter before any order adverse to them regarding their rights in the property could, in law, be passed against them.

5. The Tribunal had further taken note of the contradictory findings regarding possession of the land, recorded by the two Revenue Officers i.e. by Tehsildar, Kotranka indicating Manzoor Ahmad, Shamim Ahmad and Abdul Shakoor, sons of Ahmad Din, to be in cultivating possession of the land while attesting Mutation No.394 and by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Rajouri indicating the respondents to be in cultivating possession of the land from the year 1971 onwards.

6. It was not disputed at the time of consideration of the petition that respondents had neither signed the Mutation nor were they present when the Mutations are stated to have been attested in favour of the petitioners.

7. Petitioners counsels plea that the Tribunal has erred in exercising Revisional jurisdiction to set aside the Mutation attested in favour of the petitioners, when no question of law was involved in the case, is found unsustainable, in that, attestation of Mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act, in the absence of the respondents, who stood recorded as owners of the land, in the Revenue records, was violative of the principles of Natural Justice, giving rise to a question of law as to whether or not Mutations under Section 4 and 8 could be attested by the authorities, under the Act, without hearing the recorded owners in this behalf.

8. The orders passed by the Tribunal, cannot thus, be faulted on the ground that no question of law had arisen in the Revision before the Tribunal, in that, finding of the Tribunal that the respondents were not present at the time of attestation of the Mutation did give rise to a question of law which has been properly answered by the Tribunal by annulling the Mutations being bad in law, for violation of the principles of natural Justice.

9. The Tribunals further finding that the Mutations had been attested contrary to the Provisions of Standing Order No. 23-A, governing attestation of Mutations, too was the Tribunals response on a question of law arising in the case, requiring consideration

Click Here to Read the rest of this document