The main legal point established is the revisional authority's power to remand a matter for denovo inquiry under the Agrarian Reforms Act, emphasizing the correct application of the Act's provisions.

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2002 passed in writ petition being OWP No. 612/2002 whereby the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed.

2. With a view to understand the controversy in its correct perspective, it is, however, necessary to give in brief a few material facts:

3. Vide mutation No. 936, dated 28.7.1981, the Tehsildar, Banihal ordered correction of Girdawari (Sehat kashat) in favour of one Habib Ullah, father of the petitioner/appellant herein, in respect of land measuring 1 maria under Khasra No. 66 and 1 maria under Khasra No. 1088/67 min situated at Ramsoo Tehsil Banihal

4. As a necessary consequence: of the mutation No. 936 (supra), another mutation No. 1077 was attested in respect of the same land under Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (for short, Act of 1976) and finally vide mutation No. 1078, father of the appellant (Habib Ullah) was declared as absolute owner of the land under Section 8 of the Act of 1976.

5. Aggrieved of the mutation No. 936, an appeal was preferred before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu after a lapse of four years and ten months of the date of the aforesaid mutation. This was subsequently transferred to the Deputy Commissioner, Doda, who was vested with the powers of the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms. Subsequently, it appears that the said powers of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner were delegated to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramban, who vide its order dated 29.07.1997 allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation No. 936.

The reasons for allowing the appeal were firstly that the mutation had been attested without affording any opportunity of being heard to the respondents herein and secondly, that the mutation was contrary to the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act inasmuch as the land in question was Gair Mumkin i.e. uncultivable land, therefore, outside the purview of the Act.

6. Aggrieved of the order dated 29.07.1997, revision came to be preferred before the J&K Special Tribunal inter alia on the ground that Habib Ullah predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had died and that the appeal was decided without bringing on record the appellant herein, as his legal heir on record and without affording any opportunity of being heard to such legal heirs. It was stated that Habib Ullah had died on 18.02.1997 oven before the order was passed without any stops having been initiated to bring on record his legal heirs.

7. The Tribunal, held that the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramban was one against a dead person and, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law and also being satisfied that there being no condonation of delay application filed by the appellant despite there being a delay of four years and ten months, held the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 29.07.1997 as bad in law. However, at the same time, it remanded the case to the Tehsildar Banihal for conducting a denovo inquiry regarding the nature of land as also possession thereon during the period of Kharif 1971 after providing an opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned on the ground that the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act did not apply to the land in respect of which mutation under Section 4 had been attested and further that it had not been attested in accordance with the provisions, governing attestation of such mutations.

8. The Tribunal by virtue of the same order dealt with and decided another revision petition filed in the Tribunal against the order of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner dated 3rd May, 1998 passed in appeal titled "Ghulam Nabi and Ors v. Atta Mohammad and Ors" in which appeal, mutation Nos. 1077 and 1078 had been challenged under Sections 6 and 8 of the Act of 1976 and pertained to the same land in regard to which mutation No. 936 had also been attested.

9. The basis of challenge in th