IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit is fundamental in ensuring that judicial errors do not harm litigants, and courts have a duty to correct such errors to uphold justice.

JUDGMENT :

RAHUL BHARTI, J.

1. This case has a knot which was tied by none else than this Court and is to be untied by none else than this very Court so as to truly serve the spirit of the dictum that an act of Court shall prejudice none. In the case of Jang Singh vs. Brij Lal and Ors. 1966 AIR SC 1631, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, without any iota of reservation, eulogized that there is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of the courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied best for that mistake. The maxim for this principle is identified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is “Actus curiae neminem gravabit.”

2. The successors-in interest of the original adversaries to the litigation are finding themselves locked in a situation which somehow got setup by an oversight on the part of this Court at the relevant point of proceedings in the case its docket, the potential of which is adversely bearing on the substantive rights of the parties to the lis with respect to the property in reference.

3. The facts attending the case trace back their origin to 1984 when with respect to land measuring 4.18 kanals situated in village Haigam/Sopore a mutation dated 22.02.1984 under section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, came to be attested in favour of Late Haji Malla Mohammed-the predecessor in interest of appellants herein followed by attestation of a mutation dated 02.03.1984 under section 8 of vesting of ownership qua said land in favour of said Haji Malla Mohammed under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.

4. Against the said two mutations a statutory appeal under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, came to be filed by Ali Najar-the predecessor in interest of the respondents 5 to 8 figuring in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Said statutory appeal had come to be disposed of by the appellate authority vide its decision dated 12.10.1989 setting aside the said two mutations of substantive nature.

5. Aggrieved of the outcome of the said appeal being adverse to him resulting in upsetting of said two mutations which had earned ownership of above mentioned land in his favour, said Haji Malla Mohammed came to resort to the remedy of revision under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, by challenging the appellate order dated 12.10.1989 before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Srinagar, which found favour with the case of said Haji Malla Mohammed and set aside the appellate judgment dated 12.10.1989 as a result whereof above referred two mutations came to be restored in terms of their effect and purpose. The Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Srinagar, in its judgment dated 12.10.1992 had found lack of locus on the part of said Ali Najar in challenging the said two mutations so passed in favour of Haji Malla Mohammed.

6. Against said judgment dated 12.10.1989 of the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Srinagar, Ali Najar came to file writ petition bearing OWP No. 2982/1992 before this Court wherein in terms of an interim order dated 04.02.1993 the impugned judgment dated 12.10.1992 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Srinagar, was ordered to be kept in abeyance.

7. Said Haji Malla Mohammed-as being the respondent no. 5 in the writ petition OWP No. 2982/1992, came to appear and submit his reply/objections on 23.02.2000. Said writ petition OWP No. 2982/1992 of Ali Najar came to be dismissed by the Single Bench of this Court for non-prosecution vide its order dated 30.10.2002. This dismissal of the writ petition OWP No. 2982/1992 is the root situation of the issue borne in the present case.

8. Immediately after the dismissal of the writ petition OWP No. 2982/1992 for non-prosecution on the part of the petitioner Ali Najar, Haji Mohammed Malla came to expire in November 2002. Ali Najar-the original writ petitioner in OWP 2982/1992-too came to demise in th