The main legal point established in the judgment is the specific exemption of land allotted to displaced persons from the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, as outlined in Section 4(2)(c) and Schedule II of the Act.

1. Whether the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1976) apply to the land allotted under Cabinet order No. 578-C of 1954 to the persons displaced from Pak Occupied Kashmir in the year 1947 is a pivotal question for adjudication.

2. The land covered by Survey No. 276/17 (16 kanals), 279/19 (6 kanals) and 281/20 (14 kanals 16 marlas) situated in village Muthi Jagir, Tehsil and District Kathua admittedly has been under possession and cultivation of the appellants (writ petitioners) on the crucial date of Kharif 1971. Mutation No. 220 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act has been attested on 25.07.1981 where-under rights of respondent No. 3 (Harbhajan Singh) have been extinguished and the appellants (tillers) have been declared as prospective owners.

3. Against the said mutation No. 220, respondent No. 3 (Harbhajan Singh) filed appeal before the appellate authority under Agrarian Reforms Act (Additional Deputy Commissioner Kathua with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) on 16.05.2002, which has been decided vide detailed judgement dated 25.10.2004 holding therein that the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act are applicable to the land in question, thus Mutation attested is in accordance with the law.

4. Respondent No. 3 (Harbhajan Singh) preferred Revision Petition before the revisional authority, i.e., (J&K Special Tribunal), Jammu on 20.01.2005, which has been Decided on 24.08.2007. Learned Tribunal while referring to Rule 6 of the Allotment of Land to Displaced Persons Rules, 1954 held that the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act will not apply to the displaced persons from Pak Occupied Kashmir, who had been allotted the State land. Finally, it has been concluded that Mutation No. 220 to the extent it pertains to Harbhajan Singh-respondent No. 3's land is set aside along with Mutation No. 223 as well as the appellate Court order dated 25.10.2004. Further has directed that the possession of the disputed land be restored to said Harbhajan Singh.

5. Dissatisfied with that order of the Tribunal, appellants filed OWP No. 939/2007, which has been Decided on 15.03.2012 where-under while dismissing the writ petition of the appellants, it has been held that the view taken by the Tribunal in annulling the Mutation attested in favour of the appellants cannot be faulted.

6. Learned Single Judge while referring to the position of respondent No. 3 being a displaced person of 1947 from Pak Occupied Kashmir then to the Cabinet decision No. 578-C of 1954 and conferment of ownership rights thereon vide Mutation No. 198 under Government Order No. 254-C of 1965 and then while referring to Section 4-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act held that any Mutation attested under Sections 4,8 and 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act for any land mentioned under Section 3 or Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act would be void ab initio. Learned Single Judge concluded that the land in question falls in the category of land as defined in Section 4(2) (c) of the Act.

7. The main object of the Agrarian Reforms Act was to transfer the land to the tiller for its better utilisation subject to certain conditions as incorporated in the Act itself.

8. The crucial date for extinguishing rights of ex-owner who were not person#31;ally cultivating the land is Kharif 1971, position of the appellants being tillers cultivating the land on the crucial date of Kharif 1971 is not disputed. In the revenue records, father of the appellants is recorded as tenants at the rate of 1/3rd,, that is, 1/3rd of the prodvice payable as rent to the land owners and it is in view of the same position, Mutation has been attested under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act in favour of appellants.

9. Section 3 of the Act provides categories of land to which provisions of the Act shall not apply which include land described in Schedule-II.

10. Section 4(2)(c) also provides that the Act will not a