1. The brief history of the case are that respondent No. 1 is an ex-owner of the land under various survey Nos. and mutation under section 4 has been attested as petitioners were the tenant of the land. After that, the respondent No. 1 has preferred an application form under section 7 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act (for short as `the Act') for resumption of land on which the mutation No. 795 dated 23-11-1985 has been passed in ex-parte in contravention of the law. The petitioners are aggrieved of the said mutation as such, preferred an appeal before the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner (Addl. Deputy Commissioner), Kupwara (for short as the `appellate authority') on 30-01-1986 on the main ground that Tehsildar Kupwara was duty bound to allow the petitioners herein to participate in the resumption proceedings and allow opportunity of being heard but Tehsildar has started the resumption proceedings without seeking objection with regard to the limitation point and as per Tehsildar, resumption form filed by the respondent No. 1 got destroyed in the fire and Tehsildar has also given some reference to file No. 47 dated 19-07-1981 which reveals that respondent No. 1 has not applied for resumption under prescribed period of resumption for attestation of mutation under section 7 of the Act. No inquiry was conducted by the said Tehsildar. In appeal, the appellate authority has sit over the matter for 25 years but finally has passed the impugned order which is under challenge in the instant revision petition.

2. As per petitioners, appellate authority was duty bound to visit the spot under Rule 50 of Agrarian Reforms Rules and it is also his duty to locate the original resumption form and look into the law and further, ascertain the position whether appellant had participated in the resumption proceedings and it is also to be looked by the appellate authority whether mutation No. 795 was passed in accordance with the parameters as laid down under section 7 of the Act. Appellate authority was duty bound to return finding on the question of limitation but no application of condonation of delay was placed on file. Written argument of respondent No. 1 reveals that some of the appellants have died and some of them have entered into compromise with respondent No. 1, so they have no right to challenge the present mutation. This aspect was not at all adjudicated by the appellate authority and did not return any finding on the issue raised by the parties. The legal representatives have not been brought on record. When some of the appellants entered into agreement with respondent No. 1 and the court entertained the same, this procedure of the appellate authority is blatantly in violation of the Act because agreement does not fall within the ambit of section 12 of the Act and is illegal and without jurisdiction. The order of the court below does not fulfill requirement of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC because the facts given in the judgment are not complete.

3. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and I have carefully gone through the record of the case.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that Tehsildar concerned had attested the mutating under section 7 of the Act without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Moreover, alleged resumption form on which mutation No. 795 has been attested is missing. As per Tehsildar, it was burnt in the fire incident in Tehsil office and he has given some reference to file No. 47 of 1981 which reveals that respondent No. 1 has not applied for resumption under prescribed period of limitation as such, the basic application form is not available, so the application is hit by limitation. Ld. Appellate authority has not conducted the inquiry under Rule 50 of the Agrarian Reforms Rules, as such, appellants/petitioners had not participated in the resumption proceedings and as such, have been condemned unheard. Moreover, as the appeal is a time barred appeal, but the appellate authority has not given any finding on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document