IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that actual possession and the integrity of the mutation process are critical in determining tenancy rights and prospective ownership under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved and have called in question order dated 27.08.2003 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal ['the Tribunal'] in the revision petition titled 'Bodh Raj and Ors. v. Naresh Kumar & Anr.', whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners and upheld the order passed by the Director Land Records (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu dated 28.09.1996 in the appeal titled Naresh Kumar v. Bodh Raj.

2. Briefly put the facts projected by the petitioners in this petition are that the land measuring 17 kanals, 12 marlas comprising of khasra No. 28 min (5 kanals) and Khasra No. 30 min (12 kanals, 12 marlas) situated at Gopala Chak, Hiranagar, District Kathua ['the subject land'] was owned by one Ram Lal and was under the cultivating possession of father of the petitioners late Sh. Buddha as tenant thereof. It is submitted that the subject land remained under the tenancy of father of the petitioners till his death and after the demise of said Budha, the father of the petitioners, the petitioners stepped into his shoes and became the tenants in cultivating possession of the subject land. It is the allegation of the petitioners that Respondents No. 2&3 ['the private respondents'] manipulated a fraudulent document purported to have been executed by father of the petitioners during his life time. As per the said document, the father of the petitioners allegedly surrendered the possession of the subject land in favour of Mulk Raj and Gouri Shanker, in the year 1971. It is, on the basis of this document, the private respondents managed mutation No. 104 attested in their favour. The petitioners, however, deny that any such document was executed by their father during his life time. They assert that, notwithstanding the execution of the document and attestation of mutation, the petitioners are in continuous and interrupted possession of the subject land and have been cultivating the same for the last several decades. The petitioners, however, submit that mutation No. 115 of Sehat Indraj from kharief 1972 was also later attested indicating the possession of late Sh. Budha, the father of the petitioner. It is, thus, submitted that, with the coming into operation of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 ['the Act of 1976'], the petitioners, who were in cultivating possession of the subject land in kharief 1971 got a right to be declared as prospective owners and, accordingly, they were so declared by attestation of mutation bearing No. 221 dated 04.12.1986 under section 4 of the Act of 1976. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that earlier also, a suit came to be filed by the private respondents for injunction and possession against Budha before the Collector, Agrarian Reforms which was dismissed on 29.12.1980. It is submitted that, against the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by Mulk Raj, the father of Respondent No. 2, but the same abated in view of failure to bring on record the legal heirs of Mulk Raj, who had died during the pendency of that appeal. There was, however, an application for restoration filed by the Respondent No. 2 on 05.09.1992 after about five years of abatement and the said application too was dismissed for non-prosecution on 08.11.1993. Respondent No. 2 filed another application for restoration of the application dismissed for non-prosecution and the learned Collector vide order dated 30.07.1994, allowed all the applications filed by Respondent No. 2 against which petitioner No. 1 has preferred a revision petition before the Tribunal. The said Revision Petition has been allowed and the case has been remanded to the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kathua for conducting a detailed enquiry and for returning a finding in regard to possession and status of Budha Ram. These proceedings are still pending before the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kathua and have not been taken to logical end. It is submitted that, a