1. The present case is an example of perversity of order passed from time to time by the concerned Revenue Officer, by mis-interpretation and mis-application of relevant provisions of law.

2. The facts of the case as unfolded from the record are as under:-

Land falling under number Khasra 130 measuring 29 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Narwal Bala Jammu was owned by Krishan Dutt and Ors. The land was being cultivated by Phama Gujjar as occupancy tenant prior to Kharif 1971 and even in Kharif 1971. The entries in this regard have been made in the Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi. Petitioner, Bashir Ahmed Butto and Ahmed Din are sons of Phama Gujjar. Respondent Ahmed Din is residing in village Narwal Balla Jammu whereas his other two brothers are residing in Gujjar Nagar Jammu.

3. After coming into force of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 (hereinafter the `Act') mutation No:320 under Section 4 of the Act dated 29.10.1979 was attested by Tehsildar (Settlement) Jammu and on 30.10.1979 mutation No:322 under Section 8 of the Act was attested by the same Revenue Officer, by declaring Phama Gujjar as absolute owner of the land in question.

4. On 15.1.1998 Tehsildar(Settlement) Jammu attested again mutation No:1266 under Section 121 of Land Revenue Act and declared Ahmed Din s/o Phama Gujjar as absolute owner of the land in question. By that time Phama had died.

5. On 11.3.1998 said mutation was challenged by Bashir Ahmed and Choudhary Bhutto before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Jammu. Similarly before the said Commissioner, Ahmed Din respondent No:3 on 21.5.1998 also filed an appeal against mutation No:320 and 322 attested in favour of his father under Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. On 21.2.2000, both the appeals were disposed of by setting aside the mutations in question and cases were remanded back to Tehsildar(Settlement) Jammu for inquiry on spot in presence of the parties and to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

6. The Tehsildar (Settlement) Jammu made an inquiry on 30.9.2001 at camp Narwal, in presence of respondent Ahmed Din and petitioner Choudhary Bhutto. Bashir Ahmed respondent No:4 was not present there. After holding the inquiry the Tehsildar attested mutation under Section 4 by giving the earlier No:320 to the same and declared Ahmed Din respondent as prospective owner on the ground that he was cultivating the land. Thereafter the said Tehsildar attested mutation under Section 8 by giving the previous number 322 and conferred the ownership rights on respondent Ahmed Din on the very same day. The Tehsildar made no inquiry in respect of mutation attested under Section 121 of Land Revenue Act.

7. Aggrieved by the attestation of mutations in favour of respondent Ahmed Din, his other two brothers preferred two appeals before Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms(with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Jammu on 20.12.2003. Both the appeals were disposed of by the common order on 29.7.2006 after upholding the mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act in favour of Ahmed Din respondent. According to Commissioner, Ahmed Din respondent was cultivating the land in question and his two other brothers were residing in Gujjar Nagar Jammu for last 40 years so they constituted a separate unit of family and were also not in cultivating possession of the land. Against the judgment of Commissioner the present two revision petitions have been filed for setting aside the same.

8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and examined the record minutely.

9. For the sake of brevity the Commissioner who remanded the case after setting aside the mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act attested in favour of Phama Gujjar will be referred to 1st Commissioner and the Commissioner who has upheld the orders passed on mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act, attested in favour of respondent Ahmed Din, as 2ND Commissioner.

10. Admittedly Phama Gujjar was occu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document