The main legal point established in the judgment is the nullity of land mutation in violation of the Agrarian Reforms Act and the limited scope of the High Court's power under Article 227.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners through the medium of the present writ petition has sought quashment of the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and also order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, in appeal by invoking powers under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution of India, besides, seeking a direction against the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession and occupation of the petitioners qua the land falling under survey No.41 situated at Laripora Pahalgam, Anantnag.

2. The subject of the dispute in the present litigation is the land measuring 3K 7M and 3 Sirsai covered under khasra No.41 of estate Laripora Tehsil Pahalgam, which through mutation No.2282 dated 25.01.2016 has been mutated in the name of petitioners on the basis of a registered sale deed. The said mutation came to be challenged by the respondents before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag who vide order dated 19.06.2019 set aside the same by holding it violative of the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, and also that the respondents having deceived the said court and managed to get the land in favour of Mushtaq Ahmad Din and Farooq Ahmad Din. The petitioners challenged the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner Anantnag, by way of a Revision Petition before the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir who vide a reference has recommended to set aside the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner Anantnag by holding that the Additional Deputy Commissioner has passed the order without jurisdiction. The parties were put to notice by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) exercising powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, who appeared through their respective counsels. During the course of proceedings, the parties placed on record a compromise deed/Memorandum of agreement whereunder it was mentioned that the parties have amicably settled the issue amongst themselves.

3. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the land measuring 05K 01 M under khasra No.41 in the ownership of one Mohammad and others which has been alienated by Lasoo through a sale deed registered by Sub Registrar Anantnag on 20.05.1962 in favour of the predecessors of the respondents. Mutation No.430 dated 26.04.1968 has been attested in this regard. Thereafter, the said land has been mutated in the name of the above said Lasoo under section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, through Mutation Nos. 812 & 1049 respectively. A challenge to the mutation 1049 was put to by the respondents before Additional Dy. Commissioner Anantnag arraying the successors of Lassoo as respondents. However, during the pendency of the appeal the respondents therein managed a sale deed for land measuring 03K 07M 3 Sirsai in favour of the petitioners therein, on the basis of which mutation No.2282 has been attested which is the subject of challenge before Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J&K. Another mutation, bearing No. 2295, which too was based on sale deed for land measuring 01K 13M 6 Sirsai has been attested in favour of the mother of the petitioner No.1, the vendor being one of the sons of Lasoo.

4. The record further reveals that the earlier vendees (respondents herein/ their predecessor) had challenged the mutation attested under section 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act, by way of an appeal before the Addl. Dy. Commissioner Anantnag, which appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2022, meaning thereby that the said vendees have lost the right over the land which had accrued to them in 1962. During the pendency of appeal before Additional Dy. Commissioner Anantnag, the beneficiaries of section 4/8 mutations transferred the land to the petitioners herein through a registered sale deed followed by attestation of mutation No.2282 dated 25.01.2016. The earlier vendees again approached the court of Addl. Dy. Commissioner Anantnag against mutation 2282 and the said court vide order dated 19.06.2019 se