Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument obtained through fraud is void.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call in question an order dated 17th October, 2018, passed by the J&K Special Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in a revision petition titled “Abdul Rehman Lone vs. Shri Piyare Lal Raina and others” whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners and upheld the order dated 3rd October, 2017 passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Anantnag.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel for the petitioners to assail the impugned order, it would be necessary to give brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to the filing of the instant petition.

3. The land, which is subject matter of entire controversy, measures 01 kanal and 07 marlas falling under Survey No.389 Khewat No.2 and Khata No.2 situate at Village Kharman. As per Jamabandi of 1971-72, the subject land was recorded in the ownership of Niranjan Nath S/o Haldar and Jia Lal S/o Sona Nath (Khud Kasht Jia Lal Hissadar). After the death of Niranjan Nath and Jia Lal Raina, the subject property was inherited by their legal heirs, namely, Piyare Lal Raina and Ramesh Kumar Raina, respondent No.2 and 3 in this petition. In the year 1990, respondent No.2 and 3 were forced to leave the Valley in the wake of eruption of militancy. As it has come on record that on 7th February, 2000, the respondent No.2 and 3 executed an agreement to sell in favour of Late Gul Bhat S/o Habibullah Bhat for a sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/. The subject property, which is claimed by the private respondents, came into permissive possession of respondent No.4 to 9 and the process for seeking permission of the competent authority to effect sale was set in motion. It was during the course of preparing the papers for seeking permission, it came to the notice of respondent No.2 and 3 that there was some mutation under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act [“the Act”] i.e. mutation No.1082 dated 14th April, 2000, attested in favour of the petitioners.

4. Feeling aggrieved and with a view to avoid aforesaid mutation, the respondent No.2 and 3 through their Power of Attorney holder filed an appeal before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Anantnag, challenging mutation No.1082 dated 14 th April, 2000. The Commissioner Agrarian Reforms accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned mutation, primarily, on the ground that the mutation under Section 8 had been attested by the Tehsildar, Kulgam, without first attesting a mutation under Section 4 of the Act. The impugned mutation attested under Section 8 of the Act was held to be an outcome of fraud. The Commissioner Agrarian Reforms rejected the plea of the petitioners that the appeal was barred by limitation and held that there is no limitation to challenge an action which is an outcome of fraud. This was done by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms vide order dated 4th October, 2107.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (supra), the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms and dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 17th October, 2018. It is this order of the Tribunal which, as stated above, is impugned in this petition by the petitioner on multiple grounds.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference with the impugned order, that too in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both the forums below i.e. Commissioner Agrarian Reforms and Tribunal, have returned concurrent finding of fact that mutation under Section 8 of the Act attested by Tehsildar, Kulgam