The main legal point established in the judgment is that belated appeals without sufficient cause can be rejected, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in exercising revisional power is limited.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners are aggrieved and have assailed an order dated 28th April, 2004 passed by the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu[‘the Tribunal”] in file No.210 (Revision) titled Jia Lal and another v. Des Raj and others, whereby the order of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Udhampur dated 2nd July, 2001 and those of Additional Tehsildar, Udhampur passed on Mutation No.178, 324 and 351 dated 15th May, 1974, 29th March, 1991 and 14th September, 1991 respectively have been set aside.

Factual Matrix

2. Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 [“private respondents”] were the owners of the land in dispute, however, the petitioners herein had been shown in cultivating possession thereof long prior to kharief 1971. The petitioners also claim to be in cultivating possession of the said land in kharief 1971 and thereafter. The Additional Tehsildar [“Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur]” attested mutation Nos.178 dated 15th May, 1974 under Section 4 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 [“the Act”] to vest the land in question in State and declared the petitioners prospective owners. As a consequence thereof, mutation Nos. 324 and 352 dated 29.03.1991 and 14.09.1991 respectively were attested under Section 8 of the Act conferring ownership rights upon the petitioners on payment of levy. The private respondents, feeling aggrieved of the mutation orders, filed three separate appeals before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur on 14.09.2000. The said appeals came to be dismissed by the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur vide his order dated 02.07.2001 on the ground that the appeals were hopelessly time barred. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by order dated 02.07.2001 passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, the private respondents filed a revision petition challenging the aforesaid composite order before the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu [“the Tribunal”]. The revision petition was accepted and the impugned order in three appeals filed by the private respondents passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur was set aside. It is this order of the Tribunal, which is called in question in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions

3. The order impugned is challenged by the petitioners primarily on two counts:-

i) That the Tribunal has not appreciated correctly the aspect of delay and laches in filing the appeals by the private respondents before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur. It is submitted that the cause of action to file the appeals against the orders of Tehsil Agrarian Reforms on first mutation accrued to the private respondents in the year 1974 when mutation under Section 4 was attested and the land of the private respondents was vested in the State. The cause of action also accrued to the private respondents on 29th March, 1991 and 14th September, 1991 when two mutations under Section 8 of the Act came to be attested conferring ownership rights on the petitioners. The petitioners claim that one of the co-sharer of the private respondents was even present at the time of attestation of mutation dated 15.05.1974 (Section 4 Mutation). Private respondents, however, filed appeals challenging these three mutations only on 14th September, 2000 i.e. 26 years after the attestation of mutation under Section 4 of the Act and 9 years after the attestation of mutations under Section 8 of the Act, that too, without explaining huge delay.

ii) That the interpretation put by the Tribunal on Subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Act is erroneous and completely flawed. The Tribunal has erroneously held that the land in dispute, which is recorded as Banjar kadeem/gair mumkin is land to which the provisions of Section 4 and 8 of the Act are not applicable and such land shall be deemed to be in personal cultivation of the owners.

4. Per contra, Mr. K.S.Puri, learned counsel, who represents private respondents, submits that the writ petit