A petitioner cannot pursue a new writ petition regarding land already contested in previous legal actions, emphasizing the need for resolution of prior matters.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the Mutation No.369 dated 26.06.1991 attested under section 7 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 recorded in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 2-Dr. Neeraj Sharma by the respondent No. 7. It is stated that aggrieved of the aforementioned mutation, the father of the petitioner had preferred an appeal before respondent No. 11 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.04.1994 and thereafter, order dated 10.04.1994 was assailed through the medium of revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu-respondent No. 12 herein, but the revision petition was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 15.05.1998.

2. It is stated that the grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Thotha Ram was the tenant in respect of the land comprising khasra No. 50 min measuring 8 kanals situated at Village Agore Tehsil Jammu. After the demise of the father of the petitioner namely Fiso Ram on 19.12.2022, the petitioner and his mother Parsino Devi, brother and sister stepped in to the shoes of Fiso Ram being his legal heirs and the petitioner has been appointed as attorney by his mother, brother and sister.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that the orders passed by respondent Nos. 11 and 12, have been passed without application of mind, as such, are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the application submitted by the father of respondent No. 2 was time barred and as such, his application was required to be rejected, but the authorities below have committed great illegality by ignoring the said issue. It is also urged by the petitioner that pursuant to Mutation No. 322 attested under section 4 of the Agrarian Land Reforms Act, 1976, levy for 8 kanals of land amounting to Rs. 2575/- was also deposited by the father of the petitioner with respondent No. 6 for conferring ownership rights under section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and mutation under section 7 of the Agrarian Reforms Act has been attested in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further averred by the petitioner that an application was filed for getting the certified copy of the judgment dated 05.08.1999 passed in OWP NO. 603/1998 but the registry reported that no such file has been deposited in the month of August 1999. The petitioner further claims to be in possession of the land measuring 8 kanals.

4. The respondent No. 2 has filed the response, stating therein that the petitioner has concealed the material facts that he had earlier filed two civil suits for permanent prohibitory injunction with regard to the same land, which is the subject matter of present petition, before the courts of learned Munsiff, Jammu and learned Sub Registrar, Jammu and as such, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. The present writ petition is also being objected on the ground that it suffers from delay and laches. On factual aspects of the case, it is stated that the father of respondent No. 2 was the lawful and absolute owner in possession of land measuring 19 kanals and 2 marlas comprising old khasra No. 50 min situated at Village Chak Singha Agore, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Jammu and as the father of respondent No. 2 was not personally cultivating the said land in kharief 1971, therefore, in terms of Section 4 of the Act, all the rights, title and interest over the aforesaid land were extinguished and vested in the State. However, the father of the answering respondent No. 2 resumed 5 kanals and 11 kanals from other two tenants by mutual agreement, out of which 2 kanals of land was acquired by the Government for construction of the road. It is also stated that the father of the respondent No. 2 further exercised his right vested with him under section 7 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 for resumption of land measuring 8 kanals from the grandfather of the petitioner and submitted resumption form with th