JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. One Sh. Mehandi was the occupancy tenant of land measuring 32 kanals, 12 marlas underlying khasra No. 50 situate at village Batna, Tehsil Chenani, District Udhampur [“the subject land”]. It is claimed by the respondents [“the private respondents”] that” in the year 1968, they all migrated from village Dhanmasta Tehsil Banihal to village Batna and started cultivating the subject land as tenants under the occupancy tenant, namely Mehandi. The entry in the revenue record, however, continued in the name of Mehandi and his brother Titru. After inducting the private respondents as tenants, both Mehandi and Titru left the village and settled somewhere in village Kud. It is claimed that subsequent to the migration of Mehandi and Titru from village Batna, the private respondents came to be recorded in cultivating possession in the khasra girdwari of Rabi 1984. The private respondents approached Tehsildar Chenani for conferment of ownership rights upon them qua the subject land on the ground that they were in cultivating possession as tenants since 1970. They were, however, informed by the revenue Authorities that mutation No. 62 dated 29.08.1980 had already been attested in favour of Mehandi. This mutation was called in question by Chatter Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 7 to 12 by way of an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Udhampur [“ the Appellate Authority”]. The said appeal was filed against Sh. Panjabu son of Mehandi, who, by that time, had passed away. Some of the private respondents herein and the predecessor-in-interest of other respondents, were also arrayed as proforma respondents in the said appeal.

2. The aforesaid appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 27.10.2005 and the mutation order No. 62 dated 29.08.1980 was set aside. The matter was remanded to Tehsildar Chenani for conducting the de novo enquiry. It may be pertinent to note that one Udhay Chand was owner of subject land and on his sad demise, his estate devolved on his sons, namely Sukhdev Chand, Yashpal Chand, Sat Pal Chand and Ghulab Chand. The mutation of inheritance bearing No. 60 was attested on 30.09.1978. The recorded owner had not challenged mutation No. 62 dated 29.08.1980. Be that as it may, upon remand, the Tehsildar Chenani attested a fresh mutation bearing No. 126 dated 01.08.2006 and conferred ownership rights upon respondents 7 to 12. This mutation was called in question by the appellant herein after more than five and half years by way of an appeal filed on 21.02.2012 before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was patently barred by limitation and there was no separate application seeking condonation of delay filed by the appellant.

3. The Appellate Authority vide its judgment and order dated 10.11.2006 allowed the appeal and set aside mutation No. 126 dated 27.05.2010 qua the subject land which order of the appellate Authority was called in question by respondents No. 4 to 6 and the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 7 to 13 before the J&K Special Tribunal [“the Tribunal”]. The Tribunal vide its order dated 16.02.2018 dismissed the revision petition. It is this order of the Tribunal which was challenged by respondents No. 4 to 12 before the learned Single Judge [“the Writ Court”]. The Writ Court, vide its judgment dated 07.05.2012, allowed OWP No.416/2018 titled “Heam Devi and others vs. J&K Special Tribunal and others” filed by the private respondents and set aside the order of Tribunal and the order of the Appellate Authority. This is how the appellant is before us in this appeal to seek setting aside the impugned judgment dated 07.05.2022 passed by the Writ Court.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we find that the Writ Court has set aside both the orders, one passed by the Appellate Authority/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur and the other passe