JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. Three revision petitions filed by Som Dutt (petitioner in OWP No. 1457/2014), Bodh Raj (petitioner in OWP No. 1458/2014) and Ram Lal (petitioner in OWP No. 1459/2014) before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), have been disposed of by a common judgment dated 06.01.2014. Three revision petitioners before the Tribunal have filed three separate writ petitions. Keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the petitions being identical, all the three petitions which have already been clubbed by this court, are taken up for disposal together.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioners, it would be necessary to take note of few background facts relevant to the disposal of these petitions.

3. Based on the entries of Kharief 1971, Mutation No. 470 of village Raipur Satwari was attested by the Tehsildar Settlement under Section 4 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (for brevity "the Act"). The mutation attested included vesting of ownership rights of the owners (writ petitioners herein) in the State with respect to Khasra Nos. 154, 155 and 157. Late Dheru Ram, predecessor in interest of the private respondents who was recorded tenant of the land in question during Kharief 1971, was declared as prospective owner. The petitioners (erstwhile owners of the property) assailed the aforesaid mutation before the Financial Commissioner (with powers of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner) by way of appeal. The appeal was dismissed on merits on 07.8.1998. The order of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms dated 07.8.1998 was further challenged by way of revision petition before the Tribunal but later on the petitioners did not press their revision petitions. In any case, the order of mutation No. 470 attested on 19.12.1983 attained finality. It may be noted that after attestation of the mutation under Section 4 of the Act, the petitioners had also applied for resumption of land under Section 7 of the Act. The application for resumption was, however, rejected on the ground that the petitioners did not fulfill the requisite conditions laid down in the Act for resumption of the land. Accordingly, the Attesting Authority attested the mutation No. 473 for Khasra No. 157 measuring 2 Kanals and 11 Marias and mutation No. 802 for Khasra Nos. 154, 155 and 157 in terms of Section 8 of the Act. As it reveals from the record and pleadings of the parties, these mutations were not challenged by the petitioners.

4. While the appeal of the petitioners against the mutations attested under Section 4 of the Act was pending adjudication before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, the petitioners in anticipation of the result of the appeal, switched over to another channel and accordingly, moved an application before the Collector Agrarian Reforms for redemption of mortgage based on the entries recorded in Jamabandi prior to 1959-60. The application faced dismissal from the Collector Agrarian Reforms on 30.9.1997 and the challenge made thereto by the petitioners before the Director, Land Records, Jammu (Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) also met the same fate on 29.11.2010.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners called in question the order of the Director, Land Records dated 29.11.2010 before the Tribunal. Finding no merit, the Tribunal dismissed all the three revision petitions vide its order dated 06.01.2014. It is this order of the Tribunal, which is the subject matter of challenge in these three writ petitions.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this court is of the considered view that the order impugned passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, is in consonance with law and record and does not call for any interference from this Court in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.

7. From the sequence of events narrated above, the following admitted factual position emerges:

(i) That in Jamabandi of the year 1959-60, the land in question is reco