JUDGMENT :

WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.

Prayer:

01. Petitioners, through the medium of this petition, have sought the following relief:

“Issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order of the nature of Certiorari to quash and set aside the order dated 17.10.2018, passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu in case of Revision File No. STJ/73/2018, titled ‘Gurdeep Singh and others vs. Bansi Lal and others’.”

Brief Facts:

02. The short grievance projected through the medium of the instant petition is that the order passed by the Revisional Court is bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside, whereby the Revisional Authority, while allowing the said revision petition, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar, Kathua, for de novo enquiry with a direction to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties.

03. It is the case of the petitioners that it was not a case of remand as the order passed by the Appellate Authority was correct and the revision was not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed.

04. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the order dated 17.10.2018, which is impugned in the present petition, has been passed by respondent No. 2 in case titled ‘Gurdeep Singh & Ors vs. Bansi Lal & Ors’, in File No. STJ/73/2018, whereunder by exercising powers of revision it has set aside the judgment of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kathua (Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) passed in appeal against Mutation No. 135 under Section 8 and 132 under Section 4.

05. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Tribunal has exceeded the scope of its revisional jurisdiction by reversing the order passed by the Appellate Authority. According to the petitioners, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(2) of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act can be exercised only when a question of law or an issue of public interest is involved.

06. It is contended that in the present case, neither any question of law nor any issue of public interest was involved in the revision petition and, therefore, the learned Member of the Tribunal was not competent to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has neither recorded its opinion regarding the existence of any such question of law or public interest nor referred to any such question while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

07. It is also contended that the Mutation No. 132 dated 12.12.1983 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was attested by the Tehsildar, Kathua in favour of Madho Lal, Gian Chand, Chuni Lal, Moti Ram and Bansi Lal, sons of Punnu Ram, in equal shares on the basis of their possession since Kharif 1971 as tenants of Jagan Nath. It is submitted that Jagan Nath himself made a statement for correction of Girdawari for the year 1971 onwards from his name to the names of Madho Lal, Gian Chand, Chuni Lal, Moti Ram and Bansi Lal with respect to Survey No. 173 min and Survey No. 175 min situated at village Chhajiyal, Tehsil and District Kathua, as a consequence whereof they were declared prospective owners under the Agrarian Reforms Act. Thereafter, Mutation No. 135 dated 12.04.1984 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was also attested by the Tehsildar, Kathua in favour of the aforesaid persons, thereby conferring ownership rights upon them in equal shares over the said land which was jointly in their possession.

08. It is further submitted that Madho Lal, having been declared as one of the prospective owners and subsequently conferred ownership rights under the aforesaid mutations, had himself signed the mutation orders and admitted cultivation of the land from Kharif 1971 onwards. Since Madho Lal had never challenged the said orders during his lifetime, the legal heirs were held to have no right to assail the same. The Appellate Authority thus concluded that the appellants had not approached the Court with clean hands and, finding no illegality