JUDGMENT :

OSWAL, J.

1. With the appearance of Mr. D.R.Khajuria, learned Senior counsel along with assisting counsel on behalf of respondents 5 and 6, Caveat No. 2478/2025 shall stand discharged.

2. The Mutation No.225 in respect of the land measuring 4 kanals 8 marlas under Khasra No.242 situated at village Kallar Himmiti, Tehsil and District Udhampur was attested on 17.12.1981 by Tehsildar, Udhampur under Section 4 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act (for short- ‘the Act’) in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents, namely, Isher Lal. Another Mutation No.238 dated 21.12.1982 under Section 4 of the Act was also attested in favour of said Isher Lal in respect of the land measuring 11 Kanals 10 marlas comprising under Khasra No.225. Thereafter, Mutation No. 243 was attested under Section 8 of the Act by Tehsildar Udhampur on 23.02.1983 and the ownership rights were conferred upon said Isher Lal. Yet again another Mutation No. 311 dated 19.11.1986 was attested in favour of Isher Lal under Section 4 of the Act regarding land measuring 7 kanals comprising under Khasra No.225 and thereafter the ownership rights in respect of the same land were conferred upon said Isher Lal vide Mutation No.312 dated 24.11.1986 attested under Section 8 of the Act.

3. All the above mentioned Mutation orders were assailed by the appellant and other co-owners through the medium of four appeals before the appellate authority, i.e. Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Udhampur on 04.04.2009. The appellate authority dismissed the above mentioned appeals in terms of four separate orders dated 01.03.2012, being time-barred. The said orders were assailed by the appellant through the medium of four Revision Petitions before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, but all these Revision Petitions were dismissed in terms of common order dated 30.10.2015.

4. The order dated 30.10.2015 was assailed by the appellant through the medium of OWP No.1748/2015 by contending that the land regarding which the mutations were attested was banjar kadeem, gair mumkin khambian, warhal mandi, talab and kah charai, therefore, it was outside the purview of the Act. It was further contended that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the appellant and the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents. It was also urged that, since the contesting respondents belonged to the Mahajan community, which is a non-agricultural class in terms of Section 6 of the Alienation of Land Act, the mutation under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act could not have been attested in their favour.

5. The contesting respondents in their response stated that the appellant had no locus to file the writ petition as he was not the owner of the land in question and the Will which was relied upon by the appellant to demonstrate his locus was suspicious in nature. It was also stated that while attesting Mutations under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the land recorded as ‘Banjar Kadeem’, the said land was converted into ‘warhal mandi’ by correction of entry on spot by the Tehsildar, Agrarian Reforms. The Mutations attested in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the contesting respondents were never challenged by the appellant and his co-owners for several decades and after 24 years, the appellant cannot assail the Mutations. It was also urged that the contesting respondents had built their houses on the land in question about 40 years ago and once the other co-owners of the land did not challenge the Mutations orders and join the appellant in the writ petition, acquiescence in favour of the contesting respondents regarding attestation of the Mutations was established. Vide the impugned order dated 18.10.2025, the learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant.

6. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant has filed the present intra-court appeal, challenging the said order on the similar grounds that were urged before the