Tashi Rabstan, J.-

1. By the medium of this appeal, writ petitioner-appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.12.1999 passed in OWP No. 253/1997, titled as Chaman Lal v. Ram Lal and others (for short, impugned judgment), whereby and whereunder the learned Single judge has dismissed the writ petition being without any merit upholding the judgment and order dated 14.03.1997 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (for short, Tribunal). Learned Tribunal while allowing the Revision Petition filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein held that the property of deceased Sheetal Dass, i.e., land measuring 69 kanals and 2 marlas comprised under Khasra Nos. 2,35,48,55 and 56, situated in village Saloone, Tehsil and District Reasi, would devolve upon said respondents by operation of provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act as also in terms of the last Will executed by late Sheetal Dass. It is relevant to notice the resume of the facts as emerge from the impugned judgment and the pleadings of the parties.

2. Sheetal Dass was the real maternal uncle (Mama) of Sh. Sansar Chand, and respondents 1 to 3 herein are the sons of Sansar Chand. The writ petitioner-appellant herein claims to be an adopted son of late Shri Sheetal Dass vide Adoption Deed executed on 20.01.1976 and registered by Sub Registrar, Reasi on 30.01.1976. The writ petitioner appellant further claims that his adoptive father was an occupancy tenant and in cultivating possession of land measuring 69 kanals and 2 marlas situated at village Saloone, Tehsil Reasi (Now District Reasi) in Kharif, 1971.

3. It is contended that the Adoption Deed dated 20.01.1976 was cancelled by his adoptive father by way of Deed of Cancellation of Adoption, executed and registered on 26.09.1980 before the Sub Registrar, Reasi. The writ petitioner-appellant contended that the said Deed of Cancellation of Adoption was in violation of the provisions of Section 15 of the J&K Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 it is further contended that after the execution of Deed of Cancellation of Adoption, the adoptive father of the writ petitioner-appellant executed a will in favour of respondents 1 to 3 on 24.10.1980. It is further submitted by the writ petitioner-appellant that on 24.02.1986, Mutation No. 437 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of the aforesaid land came to be attested in favour of respondents 1 to 3 showing them as prospective owners. It is further contended that on the same day, another Mutation No. 438 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972 also came to be attested by virtue of which respondents 1 to 3 were conferred with ownership rights qua the aforesaid land.

4. The writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved of the aforesaid Mutations, i.e., Mutations No. 437 and 438 dated 24.02.1986 challenged the same in an Appeal before the Joint Financial Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Act), Jammu, who vide its order dated 12.04.1986 allowed the appeal and set aside the aforesaid Mutation order passed in favour of respondents 1 to 3. Resultantly, the case was remanded to Sub Divisional Magistrate (Collector), Reasi for passing fresh order. The writ petitioner-appellant also challenged the Mutation Order No. 133 dated 24.02.1984 attested in favour of respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the land situated at village Dharava by filing an appeal before the Agrarian Reform? Commissioner, Jammu, which too was accepted and Mutation Order No. 133 came to be set aside, and the case was also remanded to Sub, Divisional Magistrate (Collector), Reasi for passing appropriate orders.

5. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Collector), Reasi after holding fresh enquiry in pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 12.04.1986 remanded the case back to Tehsildar, Reasi vide order dated 06.03.1991 for holding fresh enquiry. In compliance of aforesaid order, Mutation No. 437 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms and Mutation No. 438 under Section 8 of the Agra