The court emphasized the importance of accurate factual representation in legal adjudication, stating that reliance on incorrect facts can lead to flawed judgments.

Headnote:(A) J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 - Section 21(2) - Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court intervened due to a factual error regarding the military service of the parties, which affected the outcome of the appeal regarding land mutations. (Paras 6, 10)

(B) Appellate authority's reliance on incorrect facts - The appellate authority acted upon the erroneous assertion that Sain Dass was in the Army, leading to a flawed judgment against the original petitioner. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The respondent challenged mutations attested in favor of the original petitioner, claiming that his father was in the Army, which was later found to be incorrect.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the orders of the Joint Commissioner and the J&K Special Tribunal, remanding the matter for rehearing based on corrected facts.

Issues: The main issue was the factual accuracy regarding military service, which was pivotal to the case's outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of accurate factual representation in adjudication, stating that the incorrect assertion about military service led to a misjudgment.

Result: The orders dated 24.11.1999 and 23.03.2005 were set aside and the matter was remanded for rehearing.

ORDER :

01. The adjudication of this writ petition shall not detain this Court any further on account of an infirmity going to the very root of the adjudication carried out by the appellate authority of the Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (with Powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu while adjudicating the appeal No. 05/JARC instituted on 24.12.1996 filed by the respondent No. 1 – Jagdish Raj as being successor-in-interest of his father – Sain Dass.

02. In terms of said appeal, the respondent No. 1 – Jagdish Raj came to challenge mutation Nos. 319 & 320 dated 09.10.1996 and dated 07.11.1996 with respect to land comprising in khasra Nos. 453/51, 56, 57, 64 and 78 in village Mokhay, tehsil R. S. Pura, district Jammu.

03. The aforesaid two mutations came to be attested in favour of the original petitioner - Amar Nath (now deceased) who is real uncle of the respondent No. 1 – Jagdish Raj. The original writ petitioner – deceased Amar Nath was younger brother of Sain Dass, the late father of the respondent No. 1 – Jagdish Raj.

04. In the memo of appeal so filed by the respondent No. 1 – Jagdish Raj challenging the aforesaid two mutations under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, it came to be expressly pleaded as a matter of fact that the respondent No. 1’ father Sain Dass was in the Army and in his absence, the entire land of ownership comprising of 46.19 Kanals situated in village Mokhay, tehsil R. S. Pura, district Jammu was under the cultivating possession of the original writ petitioner – deceased Amar Nath.

05. The appellate authority of Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (with Powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu also accepted this fact of Sain Dass being an Army personnel and in his absence, the original writ petitioner – Amar Nath holding the cultivating possession.

06. The appellate authority of Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (with Powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu, by virtue of an order dated 24.11.1999, came to set aside the aforesaid two mutations attested in favour of the original writ petitioner – Amar Nath against which a revision petition under section 21(2) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu was preferred which resulted in its dismissal by virtue of judgment dated 23.03.2005 on file No. STJ/913 of 1999 thereby upholding the order dated 24.11.1999 of the Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (with Powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu.

07. Aggrieved of the adjudication so returned by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu read with appellate adjudication of Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (with Powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu, the original writ petitioner – Amar Nath came to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

08. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, when this Court came to confirm the fact as to who was in Army, learned counsel for the petitioners as being the legal representative categorically submits that it was the original petitioner –Amar Nath (deceased) who was in the Indian Army whereas Sain Dass, the elder brother was ‘Karta’ of the joint family looking after and managing the property and other affairs of the joint family.

09. When confronted with this fact to the learned counsel of the respondent No. 1 – Jagdish Raj as to whether respondent No. 1 – Jagdish Raj’s father Sain Dass was in Army, or not, Mr. Abhishek Wazir, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 submits that Sain Dass was never in Army meaning thereby the fact that Sain Dass was in Army was wrongly cited without getting it corrected and accordingly led the appellate authority of Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (with Powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu to act upon the said wrong fact and hold a judgment against the original petitioner – Amar Nath (deceased) So remained the scenario with the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu which also acted upon said wrong fact statement.

10. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document