HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &h475 KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU OWP No.480/2004 Reserved on: 27.11.2025 Pronounced on: 05.12.2025 Uploaded on : 05.12.2025 Surishta Devi, age 47 years W/o Sh. Kishori Lal R/o Rathian, Udhampur ...Petitioner(s)

Through:-Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate V/s

1. J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu

2. Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Udhampur)

3. Tehsildar Settlement Udhampur.

4. State of Jammu & Kashmir

5. Smt. Bimla Devi D/o Sh. Gouri R/o Rathian Tehsil Udhampur, Through Attorney S. Rajinder Singh S/o S. Sarwan Singh R/o 576, Talab Tillo, Jammu.

6. Smt. Krishna Wd/ Sh. Paras Ram R/o Rathian Tehsil Udhampur.

...Respondent(s)

Through:- Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1 to 4 Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail judgment/order dated 19^th April, 2004 passed by the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu [hereinafter to be referred as „the Tribunal”] in File No.STJ/268 titled Bimla Devi v.

Savitri alias Taro and another.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. One Mst. Sangtoo was the owner of land measuring 7 kanals 5 marlas comprising in Khasra No.228 min (new Khasra No.1182) measuring 1 kanal 19 marlas and Khasra No.228 min (new Khasra No.1197) measuring 1 kanal 15 marlas apart from other landed property situated at village Rathian (Fangial), Udhampur. As per the petitioner, with respect to the aforesaid land, mutation of inheritance being Mutation No.805 dated 24.03.1972 was attested in favour of mother of the petitioner, namely, Savitri Devi, father of respondent No.5 and husband of respondent No.6. Respondent No.5, it is alleged by the petitioner, in connivance with revenue officials got mutation No.1105 attested under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act on 05.05.1987 and later mutation No.1116 dated 06.07.1987, under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. This was got done by respondent No.5 at the back of the mother of the petitioner.

3. On coming to know about the attestation of aforesaid mutation under Section 4 and 8, Savitri Devi preferred an appeal before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, who vide its order dated 05.09.1997 set aside both the mutations and remanded the case to Tehsildar, Settlement, Udhampur for fresh consideration. It is stated by the petitioner that the Tehsildar, Settlement passed order dated 12.05.1998, without associating the mother of the petitioner with the proceedings, thereby directing that 5 kanals of land be recorded in the name of respondent No.5 and 2 kanals and 5 marlas in the name of respondent No.6, thereby depriving the mother of the petitioner of her share in the land, which comes to be 1/3^rd

4. Aggrieved by order dated 12.05.1998, mother of the petitioner approached the Additional Deputy Commissioner, (With powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Udhampur by filing an appeal, who vide order dated 28^th June, 2003, set aside mutation No.1116 and directed that the parties should be given rights under mutation No.805 and 1066 respectively. Since the appeal was beyond the period of limitation, a separate application for condonation of delay was filed along with the appeal. However, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur has allowed the appeal without first deciding the application seeking condonation of delay.

5. Respondent No.5, preferred a revision against the order dated 28^th June, 2003 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur before the Tribunal. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 28.06.2003, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur and restored the order passed on mutation No.1116 dated 12.05.1998, passed by the Tehsildar Settlement, Udhampur by holding that the appellate Court fell into error when it, without deciding the issue of limitation, decided the