The main legal point established is the requirement for adherence to legal procedures, consideration of the legal position, and the mandate of the law in land dispute cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. The above titled revision petition is against the order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the ld. Additional Commissioner Pulwama, in an appeal case titled Muhammad Ganaie and Others vs. Noor-ud-din Shah bearing File No. 77/ADC/APP.

2. The brief matrix of the case are that the respondent has moved an application for demarcation of his land, which was disposed of by Tehsildar concerned vide his order dated 06.10.2004, with the direction that respondents shall move to the Civil Court for recovery of possession of land for which the respondents were found out of possession and has consigned the application for demarcation to records. The respondents have not followed the order passed by Tehsildar dated 06.10.2004, moved an application to the Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Pulwama who in a most doubtful manner with adhering the mandate of law and procedure laid down at law, disposed of the said application vide his order dated 28.10.2006, whereby he directed the Tehsildar Pampore, to have a fresh demarcation of lands of the parties and thereafter, if he finds that any land of respondents is in possession of the petitioners that may be handed over back to the respondents. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the said order of Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Pulwama, submitted an appeal before Ld. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, who vide order dated 06.05.2013, and dismissed the appeal on the count of limitation. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Pulwama assailed these orders on the following counts before this Tribunal.

(i) That the order impugned dated 06.05.2013, passed by ld. ADC, Pulwama, is result of an illegal and irregularly exercise of jurisdiction, which has caused clear abuse of process of law and total miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. The Ld. ADC in a most cursory and arbitrary manner without any factual and legal basis passed the impugned order, despite the fact that the plea of limitation is always a question of fact, which can be proved and disproved by providing a chance to the parties to lead evidence. Hence in view of this celebrated position of law, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(ii) That otherwise also the dismissing the appeal of the petitioners, the appellate authority has put a seal on an order passed by ld. Assistant Commissioner, which is void ab-initio, nullity under law and has been passed without jurisdiction. The appellate authority has failed to appreciate the explanation which the petitioners have submitted in their application for condonation of delay. He has neither provided a chance to the petitioners to prove his case for condonation, nor has taken into account, the written arguments supported by case law and has passed the order impugned in a slip shot manner without returning a finding acceptable to law. Hence the impugned order under these circumstances is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

(iii) The appellant authority has passed the impugned order in a most arbitrary and cursory manner in clear abuse of process of law.

(iv) That the impugned has been passed in derogation of mandate of law as laid down under Order 41 R. 31 of CPC.

(v) That the petitioner has a strong case on merit in context of law, but the court below has thrown out the case of the appellants on a technicality of limitation, despite the requests from the petitioners for submission of case to this Tribunal in terms of Rule 52 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Rules. The same resulted in total miscarriage of justice;

(vi) That the Ld. Assistant Commissioner Revenue, designated as Collector Agrarian Reforms has powers in terms of Section 19 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, to deal with the dispute regarding the possession of agricultural land on the touchstone of "authorized possession" or "un-authorized possession." The Collector if finds that the possession is authorized one, as in case in hand, the application is l