Concealment of earlier allotment and subsequent double allotment rendered the allotment illegal. The respondent had a legal claim over the disputed land, as reflected in the revenue records and supported by previous orders.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Kumar Wattal, Member J.

1. This order shall dispose of the four revision petitions, one against the dismissal of Revision petition against the order of cancellation of the allotment of 3 kanals and 16 marlas of the petitioner, 2nd Revision petition filed by the respondent against the order of dismissal of appeal filed by the respondent for cancellation of mutations under section 3-A of Agrarian Reforms Act with regard to 3 kanals and 16 marlas of the petitioner and another revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the attestation of mutation of 3A of the respondent and another contempt Application titled Banti Kumar v. Satish, Bimla Devi & Ors. filed by the respondent against the petitioner on 17-3-2016 with regard to the alleged construction raised by him during the pendency of revision petition and operation of stay thereby violation of the status stay order. Since all the revision petitions are inter connected and the final Revisional authority in all the cases is the same i.e. J & K Special Tribunal as such the all the Revision petitions are being disposed of by the following common/composite order.

2. For the purpose of convenience parties in the first revision file as mentioned therein, Bansilal and his successors are referred to as the petitioner/petitioners and Gian Chand and his successors are referred to herein below as the respondent/respondents while disposing of the controversy in all the four petitions.

3. The petitioners in the instant case have submitted as under:-

1. That the order of custodian General dismissing their revision petition against the order of cancellation of allotment of the petitioner Bansilal is not in accordance with the provisions of law and the Court below has wrongly interpreted that the petitioner cannot take any such arguments which has not taken place in the lower court and has not returned any interpreted finding of the case.

2. That the lower Court has misinterpreted regarding the appeal case of Section 3-A of Agr. Ref. Act which is pending in the Court as the petitioner has already become the owner of the land and the mutation has also been attested u/s. Section 3-A of Agr. Ref. Act in his favor and as such lower court has no jurisdiction to pass any such order.

3. That the land allotted to the petitioner in the year 1974 was measuring 2 kanals and in the year 1980 measuring 1 kanal and 16 marlas.

4. That the said allotment has not been cancelled and the same was challenged but the order of allotment was upheld and the lower Court has no jurisdiction to sit over the order passed by superior Court but these acts have been ignored.

5. The petitioners was in deficiency of the land more than 15 kanals and entitled for completion of deficiency of land being refugee allottee.

6. The Court below in fact seems to be influenced by the arguments of the respondents counsel regarding selling of land and as such there is nothing on record for the lower court to return such finding which is not based on facts.

7. That the application moved by the respondent after a period of eight years and thus there is not any provision for restoration of the land to the respondent unless the original allotment of the petitioner is remained intact and upheld but all these facts have not been considered by the lower Court.

8. The respondent has no locus standi to file revision as he is already having more land than the prescribed scale. The respondent has already relinquished his right from the said land as such, all these facts have not been appreciated by the lower court.

9. The order impugned is against the law and facts of the case and as such deserves to be set aside.

10. That the order impugned has been passed in utter disregard of the provisions of law and the Officer below has exceeded his jurisdiction while passing such order.

11. That the respondent has no locus standi to file any such revision petition as he has land more than the prescribed scale.

12. The petitioner is a refugee and mut