The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Agrarian Reforms Act and the Tenancy Act in determining the validity of mutations and the rights of inheritance.

JUDGMENT

Rajnesh Oswal, J. - Brief facts of the present petition are that Jalla Ram was having four sons, namely, Milkhi Ram, Prithi, Bhagoo and Bittan. In the year, 1981 Mutation No. 355 under section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 (for short the Act) was attested in favour of Jalla Ram, declaring him as prospective owner of land measuring 7 kanals 9 marlas comprising khasra Nos. 330, 357 and 368 situated in Village, Tarlokpur, Tehsil and District Jammu. Thereafter, in the year, 1988, a mutation bearing No. 442 was attested by the Tehsildar Jammu under section 12 of the Act in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners i.e. Bittan with regard to land mentioned above, excluding two other sons and one Devi Ditta s/o Bhagoo, as Bhagoo s/o of Jalla Ram had already expired. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 i.e. Milkhi Ram, Prithi, Devi Ditta son of Bhagoo Ram i.e. respondent Nos. 6&7 respectively filed an appeal against the order passed by Tehsildar Jammu dated 12.02.1988 thereby attesting the mutation of the abovementioned land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners under section 12 of the Act. The said appeal was accompanied by an application for seeking condonation of delay. The appellate authority i.e. Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner (with the powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu) vide order dated 03.04.2002 dismissed the said appeal. The said order was impugned by the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu i.e. respondent No. 1. The learned Tribunal accepted the said revision and vide order dated 24.06.2014, set aside the order dated 03.04.2002. Both mutations attested under sections 4 and 12 of the Act (supra) bearing Nos. 355 and 442 respectively were set aside and matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar concerned for appropriate action.

2. The petitioners being aggrieved of the order dated 24.06.2014 have filed the instant petition inter alia on the grounds that the learned Tribunal has not considered the issue of limitation at all and further that the learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that Bittan S/o Jalla Ram i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners constituted the joint family with late Jalla Ram and respondent Nos. 3 to 7 constituted an entirely separate family.

3. Response stands filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, wherein the answering respondents have supported the order passed by the learned Tribunal, respondent No. 1 and have categorically pleaded that Bittan, Milkhi Ram, Prithi and Devi Ditta being his sons and grandson as the case may be, were successors-in-interest of Jalla Ram and they were/are entitled to hold the land in equal shares under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act and section 67 of the Tenancy Act. It is also stated that the learned Tribunal was correct in setting aside the Mutation No. 355 as the same was based upon factual inaccuracy.

4. Mr. Rohit Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has not considered the issue of limitation and further that other sons of Jalla Ram i.e. Milkhi Ram, Prithi and grandson Devi Ditta S/o. Bhagoo constituted a separate family whereas the predecessor-in-interest i.e. Bittan constituted a joint family with Jalla Ram.

5. Mr. Surinder Singh, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7 vehemently argued that the petitioners have no cause to raise any grievance as the matter has been simply remanded for fresh enquiry.

6. Heard and perused the record.

7. The perusal of the order impugned reveals that the learned Tribunal has returned a finding that Mutation No. 355 was attested in favour of Jalla Ram in the year, 1981 whereas Jalla Ram had already expired on 04.12.1976. The petitioners have not disputed the said finding returned by the Tribunal that at the time of attestation of Mutation under section 4 in favour of Jalla Ram, the said Jalla Ram was dead.

8. The contention raised by the