The judgment established the authority of Revenue Officers to evict unauthorized occupants and restore possession summarily under Section 27 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, and clarified that lack of opportunity to be heard may not vitiate an order if no prejudice is caused.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners are aggrieved of and have assailed an order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms(Additional Deputy Commissioner), Kathua[‘the Commissioner’]whereby the Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners herein along with others against an order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner with powers of Collector Agrarian Reforms, Kathua.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant petition can be summed up in the following manner:

(a) Land measuring 46 kanals, 14 marlas falling under khasra No. 100/90 situate at village Chak Gokal, Tehsil and District Kathua[‘the subject land’]is an evacuee land and was allotted to father of respondent No.6, namely S. Surjan Singh, a displaced person. Since the subject land was shown in personal cultivation of the displaced allottee in kharief 1971, as such, a mutation under Section 3-A of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976[‘Act of 1976’] bearing No. 109 came to be attested in favour of respondent No.6. Though the revenue record continued to reflect S. Surjan Singh and after his death, respondent No.6 in personal cultivation of the subject land, yet, the actual position on the spot was different. The petitioners along with others were in actual physical possession and personal cultivation of the subject land

(b) With a view to evicting the petitioners from the subject land, respondent No.6 filed an application before the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Kathua, who, vide his communication No.DCK/ACR/2019-20/209 dated 06.11.2019, forwarded the application of respondent No.6 to Tehsildar, Kathua for furnishing a factual report. In response to the communication of the Collector Agrarian Reforms, the Tehsildar, Kathua vide his communication dated 03.12.2019 furnished his factual report indicating therein that the subject land was an evacuee land recorded in the name of respondent No.6 as occupancy tenant in terms of mutation No. 109 attested under Section 3-A of the Act of 1976. Tehsildar, Kathua also reported that the subject land was in occupation and cultivating possession of Hari Ram, Ashok Kumar and Bhaagmal etc. Tehsildar further reported that there was no revenue entry in regard to their possession. On the basis of the factual report submitted by the Tehsildar, Kathua, the Collector Agrarian Reforms, Kathua vide his order dated 19.12.2019 accepted the application of respondent No.6 and directed restoration of possession in his favour after eviction of the petitioners and others who were found to be in an unauthorized occupation of the subject land.

(c) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Collector Agrarian Reforms, Kathua, the petitioners herein along with ten others, filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, Kathua. Apart from taking other grounds of challenge, the petitioners also took a specific plea that they were in cultivating possession of land falling under Khasras No.84, 87, 88 and 89 and have no interest in or concern with land falling under khasra No.100/90.The Commissioner did not find any merit in the appeal filed by the petitioners and, accordingly, vide his order dated 19.04.2022 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the order of Collector Agrarian Reforms, Kathua.

3. It is in the above backdrop, the petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner dated 19.04.2022, have preferred the instant petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioners, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(i) That the Authorities under the Act of 1976 have no power or jurisdiction to order restoration of possession. An unauthorized occupant can be evicted and a person having title to the property can be restored possession only by a decree of possession passed by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction;

(ii) That the Forums below have not appreciated the fact that respond