The central legal point established in the judgment is the scrutiny of possession rights, mutation attestation, and the jurisdiction of the J&K Special Tribunal in the context of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.

Alok Aradhe, J

In this appeal, the appellants have assailed the validity of order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of power under section 104 of the Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir, by which writ petition preferred by the appellants against order of the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu has been dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellants' challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention which are stated infra.

2. Respondents 3 & 4 were owner of the land admeasuring 12 kanals 17 marlas farming part of survey No. 873, situate at village, Kewal Tehsil Kotranka. The aforesaid land was purchased by their father, Khushi Mohd from the original owner, namely, Shri Randhir Singh about 40 years back. The aforesaid Khushi Mohd had died in early sixties leaving behind his two minor sons, namely, respondents Nos. 3 & 4. After the death of Khushi Mohd, one Ahmad Din was in cultivating possession of land in dispute, who was a Patwari. The aforesaid Ahmad Din manipulated Tarq Kasht mutation No. 394 in favour of his three sons, namely, Manzoor Ahmad, Shamim Ahmad and Abdul Shakoor and subsequently transferred the aforesaid land in favour of Munshi Khan and Talab Hussain. However, their names were not entered in the revenue records. As per Khasra Girdawari for the year Kharief 1971, respondent No. 3 is shown to be owner and in cultivating possession of the land in dispute as one of the owners. Thereafter, Manzoor Ahmad, Shamim Ahmad, and Abdul Shakoor have been shown in possession of the land in equal shares through a mutation attested by the Tehsildar, Kotranka on 29.12.1978. Thereafter, the Tehsildar attested mutation No. 454 under section 4 on 17.02.1982 and mutation No. 541 under section 8 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 on 21.12.1982 in favour of the sons of Ahmad Din.

3. Respondent No. 3 being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, who after hearing the parties, set aside orders of mutations and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Rajouri for holding a fresh inquiry on spot. The Assistant Commissioner, Rajouri thereafter held an inquiry and fresh mutation No. 1017 was attested in favour of the State and mutation No. 1018 was attested in favour of the appellants. Being aggrieved, the respondents 3 & 4 filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, (revenue) Jammu, who vide order dated 29.05.2004 dismissed the appeal. The aforesaid order was challenged by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu in a revision. The Tribunal vide order dated 09.03.2007 allowed the revision. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 26.11.2007 dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellants. In the aforesaid factual background, the appellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Rajouri after affording opportunity of hearing to respondents 3 & 4 and after recording their evidence by an order dated 23.10.2002 had attested the mutation in favour of the appellants. It is further submitted that there is no violation of standing order 23-A as respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were afforded opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that respondents 3 & 4 were in cultivating possession of the land in the year Kharief 1971, therefore, their right, if any, in the land in question extinguished. It is also submitted that the revisional jurisdiction could have been exercised by the J&K Special Tribunal only on the question of law or of public interest. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he has referred to the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Gori Shanker vs. Mangoo Ram and others, 2004(II) SL.J, Garib Dass vs. Tehsildar Kathua and ors. LPAOW N