The court's decision emphasized the importance of upholding orders based on reports submitted by relevant authorities and the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate order or direction to the extent of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by respondent No.1-Additional Deputy Commissioner Kulgam with the powers of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner under J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 in appeal titled Abdul Gani Malik Vs. Mohammad Yousuf Lone & Ors., by virtue of which mutation order Nos. 1129 (under Section 4) and 1157 (under Section 8) dated 19.09.1999 of village Nagam Tehsil D.H.Pora District Kulgam with respect of land measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas falling under Survey No. 558 min were set aside and respondent No.2 was directed to attest fresh mutations. Besides the petitioner seeks writ of Mandamus commanding respondent No.2-Tehsilder, D.H.Pora, District Kulgam to correct the records on the basis of the report submitted by him to respondent No.1 vide No. TDHP/OQ/2021-22/101 dated 16.06.2021 and restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas falling under Survey No. 558 min situated at Nagam Tehsil D.H.Pora District Kulgam.

2. Aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, petitioner has filed the instant petition.

3. The short grievance which has been projected by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bilal Ahmad Malla is that the learned Agrarian Reforms Commissioner has committed grave error of law and has exceeded his jurisdiction and instead of directing the correction of records in light of the report submitted by Tehsildar D.H.Pora dated 16.06.2021, has allowed the appeal and the mutations mentioned supra of the land in question were set aside directing Tehsildar to attest fresh mutations in accordance with law after conducting denovo enquiry. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.3 has filed belated appeal before respondent No.1 and has challenged the mutations mentioned supra seeking quashment of the same on the ground that he is in exclusive possession of the land measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas falling under Survey No. 558 min situated at village Nagam of Tehsil D.H.Pora and the appeal was accompanied with condonation of delay application, to which application, petitioner has filed detailed objections seeking dismissal of the application on the ground of delay. Further case of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner Kulgam, a report was sought by him from respondent No.2, and accordingly, respondent No.2 (Tehsildar D.H.Pora District Kulgam) submitted detailed report vide No. TDHP/OQ/2021-22/101 dated 16.06.2021 after sending the concerned Naib Tehsildar on spot along-with Naib Tehsildar Qasba Khull and Patwari concerned. The report reveals that the mutation No. 1129 (under Section 4) and 1157 (under Section 8) with regard to land measuring 4 kanlas 15 marlas has been wrongly attested in favour of the petitioner from Survey No. 558 instead of 555 and further submitted that the land of the petitioner falling under Survey No.555 is under his physical possession as per the spot verification, and accordingly submitted that the records may be corrected.

Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.1 instead of directing correction of the records has allowed the appeal and set aside the mutations mentioned supra and directed respondent No.2 to attest fresh mutations. Learned counsel further argued that the order impugned dated 02.12.2021 passed by respondent No.1 in a composite appeal is bad in law and procedure, as the learned court of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Kulgam entertained the appeal with regard to two mutation orders, one passed by the Settlement Tehsildar Kulgam under Section 4 and another by Naib Tehsildar under Section 8, and thus, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel further submits that the order impugned otherwise is not