Limited scope of judicial review in correcting errors of jurisdiction and manifest errors apparent on the face of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 26.06.2014 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal as also order dated 22.06.1995 passed by Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Srinagar. A direction has also been sought upon respondents No.3 to 5 to identify the land sold to the petitioner and to restore the same to him.

2. According to the petitioner, his father Gulla Mir had purchased a piece of land measuring 04 kanals 04 marlas in terms of sale deed dated 15.10.1958 from one Habib Dar. The land in question was falling in Survey No.341/312 in Village Chandigam Tehsil Pahalgam. It is averred that under mutation No.134, entry in respect of the said land was made in favour of father of the petitioner.

3. It has been alleged by the petitioner that respondent No.7, who was a revenue official, in connivance with her relative, Mst. Raja, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.10 to 12, tampered with the revenue record and showed one Shri Ama Bhat, the predecessor-in-interest of private respondents No.7 to 9, as tenant in respect of the aforesaid land. Accordingly, mutation No.288 dated 26.08.1982 was attested in respect of the land in question and the land was shown in the tenancy of Ama Bhat with father of the petitioner as prospective owner. It has been further submitted that subsequently fraudulent mutation Nos.296 dated 22.01.1983 and 297 dated 03.02.1983 were attested whereby the private respondents were shown to be the tenants in possession of the land in question. It has been submitted that private respondents No.10 to 12 filed an appeal against mutation No.288 dated 26.08.1982 and the father of the petitioner was arrayed as a respondent in the said appeal. The mutation was set aside by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Anantnag, and on spot enquiry was directed.

4. It has been contended that since the land measuring 04 kanals 04 marlas in Khasra No.341/312 had been purchased by father of the petitioner, as such, provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act could not have been made applicable to the said land but the official respondents, in connivance with respondent No.7 taking advantage of illiteracy of the petitioner’s father, brought the land in question within the purview of Agrarian Reforms Act by showing private respondents as tenants in possession of the said land and, accordingly, mutation No.398 dated 25.12.1995 was attested. All these mutations were challenged by the petitioner by way of four appeals before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner), Anantnag, but the same were dismissed by the said Authority vide order dated 07.08.2010 without application of mind and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. It has been contended that the delay in filing the appeal warranted to be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case but the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner preferred revision petition against the said order passed by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner but the same was dismissed by the Special Tribunal vide impugned order dated 26.06.2014.

6. The petitioner has challenged both the aforesaid orders i.e., orders passed by Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner and the order passed by J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar, on the grounds that the mutations have been attested in a fraudulent manner so as to bring the land of the petitioner within the purview of Agrarian Reforms Act though the said land was purchased by father of the petitioner way back in the year 1958. It has been further submitted that the mutations have been attested at the back of the petitioner under the influence of respondent No.7 who was a revenue official.

7. The writ petition has been contested by the private respondents by filing a reply thereto. In their reply, they have submitted that the sale deed executed by Habib Dar in favour of father of the petitioner is a fraudulent