Important Point – Extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, cannot be extended to determine correctness of decision arrived at by Fora below.

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.

1. The present Letters Patent appeal (LPA) has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.10.2002 passed in OWP No.503/2001 by the learned Single Judge whereby order dated 01.06.2001 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (for short the Tribunal) was upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:

3. Respondent No. 3, namely, Jaswant Singh is a displaced person from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK). In terms of Government Order No. 578-C of 1954, he was allotted land measuring 22 kanals and 03 marlas along with the members of his family. This came to be recorded in the form-Alf which reflects the allotment of the allotees as displaced persons. It appears that respondent No. 3 also claimed to be in cultivating possession of land measuring 15 kanals and 14 marlas falling under Khasra Nos. 148 and 149 of village Patniyal, Tehsil and District, Jammu.

4. Admittedly, this plot of land belongs to the Evacuee Department. It appears that considering the factum of possession of respondent No. 3 over the aforementioned portion of evacuee land, the Assistant Custodian, Jammu on 10.06.1976, after considering the issue, ordered the regularization of land in question in favour of respondent No. 3. According to Section 3-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (for short the Act of 1976), a right has been conferred upon a displaced person cultivating evacuee land personally for conferment of occupancy tenancy rights. For facility of reference, section 3-A of the Act of 1976 is reproduced hereunder:

“3-A. Occupancy tenancy of displaced persons in Evacuee land: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, displaced persons cultivating evacuees' lands personally shall in respect thereof be deemed to be occupancy tenants and recorded as such. They shall be liable to pay rent equal to the amount of land revenue and cesses assessed thereon. Provided that such displaced persons shall have right to transfer their right of occupancy tenancy by sale, mortgage or gift subject to the provisions of the Alienation of Land Act and provisions of the J & K Tenancy Act, Samvat 1980 shall not apply to such transfer.”

5. With a view to enforce his occupancy tenancy rights in terms of Section 3-A of the Act of 1976, respondent No. 3 appears to have approached the appellant-Provincial Rehabilitation Officer (PRO), who was also the Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu for conferment of such rights. It appears that the PRO (exercising the powers of Custodian) vide his communication dated 04.08.1997 directed the Tehsildar, Jammu to attest the mutation in favour of Jaswant Singh, respondent No. 3 herein. Tehsildar, pursuant to the aforementioned communication forwarded the matter to the Naib Tehsidar, who subsequently attested the mutation in favour of respondent No.3 under Section 3-A of the Act of 1976 which came to be challenged before the Tribunal in its revisionary jurisdiction. The basis of challenge was the following:-

“1. That there was no basis for the attestation of mutation in favour of Jaswant Singh, respondent No. 3 herein inasmuch as, there was no order of regularization/allotment in his favour.

2. That the mutation was attested contrary to the provisions of Standing Order 23-A governing attestation of such mutations.

3. That the plea that the respondent No. 3 was in occupation of land in whose favour the regularization had been ordered was without any legal basis inasmuch as, the land in question had been continuously put to open auction on annual basis strictly in terms of Government Order No. 483 dated 21.11.1961.”

6. With a view to further support and buttress this assertion, it was urged by Mr. A.G. Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for appellant that in the year 1995, one Mohammad Abdullah had applied for allotment of the land in question on long lease deed basis which case was approved in terms of letter dated 24.04.1995 subject to payment of