CM(M) No.212/2022 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 CM(M) No.212/2022 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 CM(M) No.212/2022 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 envisages Sehat-e-Kash and, as such, finding of the Appellate Authority as upheld by the Tribunal that Sehat-e- 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 8th March, 1980 CM(M) No.212/2022 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. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 7) The contention raised by the petitioners for assailing the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority is that in terms of the Agrarian Reforms Rules, Sehat-e-Kash is permissible in law and that Naib Tehsildar, who has attested the mutations under Section 4 and 8 of the Act in respect of the land in question in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was competent to do so. 8) Before proceeding to determine the merits of the first contention urged by the petitioners, it would be apt to deal with the second contention raised by the petitioners as the competence or otherwise of the Mutation Attesting Authority would have a bearing upon the decision on the first contention raised by the petitioners. CM(M) No.212/2022 9) In order to support his contention that Naib Tehsildar, Nowgam, who had attested the impugned mutation orders dated 11.06.1986 and 04.06.2001, was competent to do so, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance upon SRO 124 of 1980 dated 08.03.1980. It would be apt to refer to the provisions of SRO 124 of 1980, which read as under: In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (XVII of 1976) and in super-session of Notification SRO-210 dated 2nd April, 1979, the Government hereby appoint the officers mentioned in columns (2) and (3) of the table forming an Annexure to this notification as Tehsildars and Naib- Tehsildars respectively for purposes of the said Act in respect of Circles shown against each in column (4) comprising the patwar halqas specified in column (5) thereof: Provided that every Territorial Tehsildar shall exercise the powers of a Tehsildar under the said Act in respect of whole of the Tehsil concerned where no Tehsildar (Agrarian Reforms) is presently posted: Provided further that every such Territorial Tehsildar shall cease to exercise the powers of a Tehsildar under the said Act in respect of Circles assigned to him from the date the Tehsildar (Agrarian Reforms) assumes the charge of the office: Provided also that where a Tehsildar (Agrarian Reforms) or an Additional Naib- Tehsildar is transferred, the Territorial Tehsildar or the Naib-Tehsildar, as the case may be, shall exercise the powers of such Tehsildar (Agrarian Reforms) or of Additional Naib-Tehsildar respectively under the said Act in respect of the Circles assigned to the transferred officer until a CM(M) No.212/2022 new incumbent assumes the charge of the office. 10) A plain reading of the third proviso quoted above, on which much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioners, would reveal that a Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms or an Additional Naib Tehsildar, if transferred, the Territorial Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar, as the case may be, would exercise the powers of such Tehsildar (Agrarian Reforms) or of Additional Naib Tehsildar respectively under the Act in respect of the Circles assigned to the transferred officer until a new incumbent assumes the charge of the office. From this, it is clearly discernible that the said proviso deals with an interim arrangement upon transfer of Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms or Additional Naib Tehsildar. It provides that powers of Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms or Additional Naib Tehsildar, if transferred, would be exercisable by the Territorial Tehsildar or the Naib Tehsildar respectively, meaning thereby that if Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms has been transferred, his powers shall be exercised by Territorial Tehsildar and if Additional Naib Tehsildar is transferred, his powers shall be exercised by the Naib Tehsildar. It nowhere provides that the powers of the Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms can be exercised by the Naib Tehsildar. The interpretation sought to be given by learned counsel for the petitioners to the petitioners to the aforesaid CM(M) No.212/2022 proviso is not tenable. Therefore, it can safely be said that the powers of the Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms cannot be exercised by Naib Tehsildar even upon transfer of Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms. Such powers can be exercised only by the Territorial Tehsildar. 11) Rule 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Rules provides for the procedure regarding disputes relating to Girdawari entries. It clearly stipulates that where, in the course of attestation of mutations under Chapter IV of the Rules, any party objects to the correctness of any entry in the Khasra Girdawari, a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of Tehsildar, has the power either to confirm the entry or to change the same, that too after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned after conducting an enquiry in respect of the such mutation. 12) In the present case, the entry in Khasra Girdawari in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has been made by the Naib Tehsildar and not by the Tehsildar. Therefore, said entry has been made by an incompetent authority and even the mutations under Section 4 and 8 of the Act pursuant to the making of such entry in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has been attested by the Naib Tehsildar, who is not the competent CM(M) No.212/2022 authority to exercise such powers. The learned Appellate Authority and the Tribunal have rightly come to the conclusion that the impugned mutation orders are not sustainable in law. Thus, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned orders by the learned Appellate Authority, as upheld by the learned Tribunal. 13) For the foregoing reasons, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction, if any, shall cease to be in operation. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Srinagar 14.11.2025 <Showkat Khan= Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No