The court upheld the jurisdiction of revenue authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, affirming their findings on land ownership and possession as valid and within their competence.

ORDER :

1. In the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) Certiorari, quashing the impugned order of learned Special Tribunal dated 11.09.2007 passed in Revision petition tilted Aziz Wani and Ors. Versus Gani Wani and another along with orders of appellate Court dated 14.1.1999 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Pulwama passed in Revision petition titled Aziz Wani and Ors. Vs. Gani and Anr., and also the order consequent thereupon pass on these orders be declared null and void.

(ii) Mandamus, commanding the respondents not to give effect to the above said orders impugned in this writ petition and also not to interfere into ownership and possession of the writ petitioners over the land measuring 14 Kanals and 18 Marlas bearing Survey No. 743/133 situated at village Sindhu, Shirmal Teh. Shopian.”

2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the reliefs aforesaid have been prayed by the petitioners would reveal that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 3 and 4 herein, had filed an application before Assistant Commissioner (Collector Agrarian Reforms), Pulwama, under Section 19 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (for short Act of 1976), seeking protection of his possession qua the land measuring 04 Kanals and 17 Marlas covered under Survey No. 743/133, situated at village Sindhu, Shirmal, Tehsil Shopian, alleged to have been interfered with by respondent 2 herein, whereupon summoning the non-applicant/respondent 2 herein, an order dated 16.04.1986, came to be passed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the applicant i.e., predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 3 and 4 herein and the respondent 2 herein, in terms whereof the respondent 2 herein admitted the applicant/predecessor-in-interest of respondents 3 and 4 to be the owner in possession of land in question and entitled to have necessary entries made in the relevant revenue records thereto. The petitioner 1 being the brother of the applicant/ predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 3 and 4 herein, filed three appeals along with his another brother namely Naba Wani, wherein, in one appeal questioned the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Collector Agrarian Reforms), Pulwama, dated 16.04.1986 supra order dated 19.05.1986 having been passed in other collateral proceedings in other two appeals. The appellate forum upon considering the appeals, including one preferred against the order dated 16.04.1986 supra, dismissed the same on 14.01.1995 on the premise that the parties have admitted that the land measuring 14 Kanals and 13 Marlas covered under Survey No. 743/133, came to be inherited by them through their mother Mst. Zooni, which had been mutated in her name under Section 4 and Section 8 of the Act of 1976 and thereafter in the name of predecessor-in-interest of respondents 3 and 4 herein to the extent of the share he got out of the said land from his mother Mst. Zooni measuring 04 Kanals 17 Marlas and consequently became the absolute owner under the provisions of the Act of 1976.

3. The petitioner 1, herein again along with his brother Naba Wani’s legal heirs as he had died in the meantime filed a revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) on 19.04.1999, calling in question order dated 14.01.1999 supra almost on the similar grounds on which order dated 16.04.1986 supra, had been challenged.

4. The Tribunal in terms of order dated 11.09.2007, dismissed the revision petition, opining that there is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge dated 14.01.1999 supra.

5. The petitioners herein being aggrieved of the orders dated 14.01.1999 and 11.09.2007 passed by the appellate authority as also the revisional authority, have maintained the instant petition on the grounds urged in the petition.

6. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein, opposing