IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 11.11.2025 Pronounced on: 14.11.2025 Uploaded on: 14.11.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full CM(M) No.212/2022 FATIMA BANO & OTHERS ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)

Through: - Mr. M. Sultan, Advocate.

Vs.

MST. MALA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Prince Hamza, Advocate.

Mr. Sajid Ahmad, Advocate.

Ms. Urba Nazir, Advocate.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have challenged order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the learned J&K Special Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the revision petition filed by them against order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the learned Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (ADC), Budgam (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Authority”), has been upheld.

2) The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that land measuring 05 kanals and 09 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos.1925/659-min, 1930/660-min and 1957/671 situated at Village Rakh Shalina Tehsil Chadoora District Budgam was mutated under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act (for short “the Act”) vide mutation No.1749 dated 11.06.1986. Thereafter mutation under Section 8 of the Act was attested in respect of the said land in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners vide mutation No.3030 dated 04.06.2001. The private respondents challenged the said mutation orders before the Appellate Authority by way of an appeal which was filed on 06.07.2002. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.07.2005 dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the private respondents by way of a revision petition before the Tribunal, which was decided by the learned Tribunal on 12.06.2006 and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside. The Tribunal further condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority with the direction to visit the spot in presence of the parties concerned and village community and decide the matter on merits.

3) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal, the Appellate Authority took up the appeal for fresh consideration and ultimately decided the appeal on merits vide its decision dated 04.04.2009. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned mutation orders passed under Section 4 and 8 of the Act, whereafter the private respondents were declared as absolute owners of the land in question entitled to receive compensation due to them in lieu of acquisition of any portion of the land in question.

4) The aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of a revision petition before the Tribunal. Vide the impugned order dated 03.08.2015. the learned Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the revision petition on the ground that there is no merit in the revision petition and that the matter does not involve determination of any question of law or of public importance. 5) The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground that Rule 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Rules Sehat-e-Kash envisages and, as such, finding of the Sehat-e-

Appellate Authority as upheld by the Tribunal that Kash is unknown to the Act, is contrary to the legal position.

It has been further contended that the conclusion of the Appellate Authority as upheld by the Tribunal that the Naib Tehsildar did not have competence to attest mutations under Section 4 and 8 of the Act is also without any substance because in terms of SRO 124 of 1980 dated 8^th March, 1980 issued by the Revenue Department, certain Naib Tehsildars have been vested with powers exercisable by Tehsildar, Agrarian Reforms. It has been submitted that the Naib Tehsildar, who has attested the mutations in the present case, was vested with the powers of Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms and, as such, he was competent to pass the mutation orders