The central legal point established in the judgment is the breach of provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 in attesting Mutations and the requirement for a denovo enquiry.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution has called in question order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue)/Commissioner Agrarian Reforms dated 15.5.2019 in appeal titled as “Manzoor Ahmad Bhat and others versus Ama Teli” and order dated 11.6.2019 passed by J&K Special Tribunal in revision petition titled as “Ama Teli versus Manzoor Ahmad Bhat and others”.

2. The genesis of the controversy involved in the writ petition is traceable to Mutation (Sehti Kasht) No. 2369 dated 15.6.1982, Mutation No. 2370 dated 15.6.1982 and Mutation No. 2511 dated 15.9.1983 attested under Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 in favour of the petitioner herein.

3. The respondents herein aggrieved of the aforesaid Mutations filed a time-barred appeal on 19.5.2015 before the appellate forum on the premise that their father passed away on 26.3.1977 and the land covered under the impugned Mutations remained under their personal cultivation and that the father of the petitioner herein was being hired as a labourer in lieu of cash for cultivating and supervising the land in question without there being any relationship of landlord and tiller and that upon the death of their father they took over the control of the land and got it cultivated through labourers including the father of the petitioner herein and that before one year from the date of filing of the appeal when the petitioner herein did not allow the appellants respondents herein to take the produce of the land, the respondents herein got suspicious and approached the Patwari concerned whereupon the respondents herein came to know about the attestation of the impugned Mutations effected at their back and subsequently took steps for challenging the same in the appeal.

It came to be further averred in the appeal by the appellants respondents herein that the impugned Mutations had been attested in breach and violation of the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and that the Sehti Kasht Mutation as also the Mutation under section 4 of the Act had been attested on the very same day i.e. on 18.6.1982 at the back of the appellants respondents herein and in absence of any Patri Sarkar and that the officer attesting the Mutation did not hear the appellants respondents herein and attested the Mutations illegally declaring the respondent petitioner herein as the absolute owner of the land in question.

4. The appellate forum upon entertaining the appeal and after summoning the respondent petitioner herein decided the application for condonation of delay accompanying the appeal on 11.2.2017 condoning the delay in filing the appeal and consequently decided the appeal in terms of the impugned order dated 15.5.2099 and while accepting the same, set aside the impugned Mutations 2369, 2370 both dated 15.6.1982 and Mutation no. 2511 dated 15.9.1983, remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue for holding a denovo enquiry and passing of appropriate orders. The appellate forum while accepting the appeal and setting aside Mutations in question observed that the ‘Sehti Kasht’ Mutation and Mutation under section 4 had been attested on the very same day i.e. on 15.6.1982 and since the ‘Sehti Kasht’ Mutation involved change in the records of the Girdawari and having a bearing on the question of personal cultivation of the land in question, the attesting officer ought to have conducted an enquiry thereon which enquiry had not been conducted. Though no finding is recorded insofar as the attestation of Mutation under section 8 dated 15.9.1983 is concerned by the appellate forum, yet the appellate forum set aside the said Mutation holding that the officer attesting the Mutation did not follow the procedure laid down under applicable law and the rules.

5. The respondents before the appellate forum petitioner herein aggrieved of the order of the appellate forum dated 15.6.2019 preferred a revision petition before Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal being the Revisio