1

S. No. 19

Regular Cause List

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

OWP 486/2018

Abdul Majid Najar

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr Shafqat Nazir, Advocate.

Vs.

State of J&K and Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Through: Mr F. A. Bhat, AAG

Mr S. M. Ayoub, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

O R D E R

10.11.2022

1.

In the instant petition petitioner has questioned the order dated

14.12.2011 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner

(Commissioner), Pulwama -respondent No. 6 and consequential order

dated 16.08.2017 passed in the revision petition filed by the petitioner

herein as also subsequent order dated 10.03.2018 passed thereto by

the Tehsildar- respondent No. 7 herein.

2.

The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition would reveal

that two mutations bearing No. 1007 attested under Section 4 of the

Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, by respondent No. 7 in favour of the

private respondents in respect of land measuring 7 kanals 4 marlas

covered under survey No. 326 as also mutation No. 1010 attested

under Section 8 of Act, of 1976, in favour of the petitioner. The said

mutations came to be challenged by the private respondents herein in

an appeal before the respondent 6 on multiple grounds and the

fundamental being that the beneficiaries of the mutations being

petitioner herein and the private respondents herein being owners of

the land have had no relationship of landlord and tenants.

2

3.

The impugned mutations came to be set aside by the Appellate

Authority while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents herein in

terms of order dated 14.12.2011, which became subject matter of a

revision petition filed by the petitioner herein on 26.03.2012 before

the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal.

4.

The revision petition aforesaid filed by the petitioner herein came to

be dismissed on 16.08.2017 upholding the order dated 14.12.2011

passed by the Appellate Authority, primarily on the ground that the

Appellate Authority has remanded the matter back to the

Tehsildar/respondent No. 7 for holding of a denovo enquiry into the

matter holding that the order passed by the Appellate authority has no

effect as the matter has been left open to be decided and addressed

again by holding a denovo enquiry by respondent No.7. The revisional

forum also opined that the revision petition does not involve the

question of law or public interest warranting exercise of revisional

jurisdiction by the Tribunal.

5.

Consequent to the passing of the order dated 16.08.2017 by the

Tribunal, respondent No. 7-Tehsildar initiated denovo enquiry and

passed order dated 11.11.2017 therein the said enquiry which again

came to be assailed by the petitioner herein before the Appellate

Authority respondent No. 6 in an appeal wherein impugned order

dated 10.03.2018 came to be passed by the Appellate Authority.

6.

According to Mr Shafqat Nazir, the counsel for the petitioner both the

appellate as well as the revisional forums made certain observations

adverse to the rights and interests of the petitioner notwithstanding of

remanding back of the case for holding of denovo enquiry by the

respondent 7-Tehsildar.

3

7.

According to the counsel for the petitioner the subsequent appeal filed

against the order dated 11.11.2017 by the petitioner passed by the

respondent No 7-Tehsildar while holding denovo enquiry stands

dismissed now by the Appellate Authority.

8.

The counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the

impugned orders passed by the appellate as well as revisional forums

have been passed on wrong premise without considering true, correct

and material facts inasmuch as statutory provisions including the

question of limitation occupying the field.

9.

Mr S. M. Ayoub, appearing counsel for the private respondents while

opposing the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the orde