Failure to avail statutory remedies renders a writ petition not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest were the tenants of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 qua the land measuring 48 Kanals and 10 Marlas comprising Survey Nos. 80, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 41 situated at Moomin Hall, Tehsil and District Anantnag. The mutation under Section 4 was attested in favour of the State and the petitioners were declared as the prospective owners vide mutation No. 279. The owners of the land, through their attorney, filed an application under Section 7 of the Agrarian Reforms Act for resumption of the land and mutation No. 327 dated 27th of July, 1985 of village Moomin Hall, sanctioning the resumption of half of the land above-mentioned was attested in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The petitioners, being aggrieved of the attestation of said mutation, assailed the said mutation before the Joint Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, Kashmir. The petitioners further claim that while the said appeal was pending, the attorney holder of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 approached the petitioners for negotiating settlement of the dispute and the negotiations continued for about a year and ultimately, the petitioners and respondent Nos. 6 and 7, through their attorney, entered into private agreement, whereby the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 agreed to surrender their claim of resumption in respect of half of the land i.e. 24 Kanals and 05 Marlas against a consideration amount of Rs.1.30 lacs to be paid by the petitioners. Out of the agreed amount, the petitioners claim to have paid the ex-owners Rs.30,800/- in cash, along with the cheque drawn in the name of attorney Radha Krishan Misri for an amount of Rs.10,000/. The agreement as also the power of attorney was executed on 1st of January, 1987. The petitioners, therefore, did not prosecute the appeal filed by them against the mutation No. 327. It is further stated that the attorney holder of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7, at the back of the petitioners, got the fictious entries recorded in the revenue record in connivance with the Patwari concerned by concealing the factum of settlement of dispute. The petitioners further claim that they came to know about the fraud played by them in August 2011, when one Janki Nath Bazaz and Ghulam Nabi came to the village and disclosed that they had obtained a letter of authority from the ex-owners executed by Sh. Rakesh Mishri for taking steps to get the land vacated from the tenants and that the said Janki Nath Bazaz was authorized to take immediate steps for eviction of the tenants by resorting to the provisions contained in Jammu and Kashmir Migrants Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 (for short ‘the Act of 1997?). The petitioners, thereafter, filed a suit before the Joint Agrarian Commissioner, Anantnag for declaring the private agreement executed between the parties on 1st of January, 1987 as an agreement under Section 12-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of land about which sale was made with a prayer for quashing the mutation No. 327 that was attested in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. While the said suit was pending, the respondent No.8 filed an application before the District Magistrate for eviction of the petitioners from the land and without issuing notice to the petitioners and conducting any inquiry, the District Magistrate passed the order dated 14th of September, 2011 and the Tehsildar, Anantnag was directed to take appropriate steps to preserve the migrant property. Subsequent to the passing of the order, the petitioners filed a review petition against the order dated 14th of September, 2011, however, the same was dismissed by the District Magistrate, Anantnag vide order dated 26th of December, 2011. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that the ‘Supurdnama’ dated 28th of January, 2012 is a fake document and that the land continues to be in the possession of the petitioners.

2. The petitioners have assailed the mutation No. 327 of village Moom