HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on 27.02.2025 Pronounced on 02 .05.2025 OWP No. 737/2008(O&M) Bhagat Ram …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. R. S. Thakur, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Ashwani Thakur, Adv. Vs J&K Special Tribunal and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for Nos.1to 5 Mr. B. S. Bali, Adv. for Nos. 8 and 9 Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE JUDGMETNT 1. This case has a chequered history, therefore, before considering the grounds urged by the petitioner in the present petition, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the factual aspects of the case. Factual matrix: 2. One Devia was the owner of the land, who gifted the land measuring 48 kanals 17 marlas situated at village Hochak to the petitioner vide gift deed dated 20.12.1963 registered with Sub-Registrar, Ramban. The gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner was assailed in a civil suit, tilted, “Hira and others vs Bhagat Ram and Anr.” before the Court of Sub-Judge Ramban on the ground that the plaintiffs therein had purchased 12 kanals and 14 marlas of land out of the total land mentioned above, forming the subject matter of the gift deed comprising khasra Nos. 557 and 560 of village Hochak, Tehsil Ramban from one Badna. The learned trial court 21 2 OWP No. 737/2008 declared the gift deed unlawful, ineffective and void qua the plaintiffs therein. The judgment and decree was assailed before the court of learned District Judge, Bhaderwah and vide judgment dated 22.06.1972, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was set side and the suit was dismissed. A Civil Second Appeal came to be preferred against the judgment and decree of the appellate court dated 22.06.1972 before this Court, but that too was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.04.1974. Thereafter, a mutation was attested on 29.06.1975 on the basis of a gift deed. 3. The respondent Nos. 6 to 9 along with one Kala filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner in respect of land measuring 6 kanals and 10 marlas comprising khasra No. 557 and land measuring 6 kanals comprising khasra No. 560 situated at Village Hochak, on the ground that they were in possession of the same. Learned Sub-Judge transferred this suit to the Deputy Commissioner (Collector, Agrarian Reforms) Doda, who in turn transferred the same to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Collector, Agrarian Reforms), Ramban in the year 1981. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Ramban vide order dated 21.04.1992 disposed of the matter with an observation and direction that the applicants are declared as the prospective owners of the land in dispute and mutation be attested in their favour by Tehsildar under sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. 3 OWP No. 737/2008 4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramban in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Doda, who referred the matter to Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner) Ramban for disposal. Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner) Ramban upheld the order dated 21.04.1992 of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Ramban vide order dated 28.02.2003. The petitioner assailed order dated 28.02.2003 before J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu on various grounds and the learned Special Tribunal vide order dated 11.07.2008 dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner and the order dated 11.07.2008 has been impugned by the petitioner through the medium of present writ petition. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that assuming though not admitting at all that the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were in possession of the said land in Kharif 1971, they could not be said to be in possession as tenants, and were not „tillers‟ within the meaning of section 2(17) of the Agrarian Reforms Act because their case all along had been that they had purchased this land, so they could not have the status of both „owners‟ and „tillers‟ simultaneously. If they were tenants at any point of time, their status as „tenant‟ or „tiller‟, if any, stood extinguished or merged, with the one pursuant to their claim of having acquired ownership pursuant to transaction of sale. Once their status of owner pursuant to agreement of sale was refuted by the civil courts, they cannot revert to the status of 4 OWP No. 737/2008 tenant, so extinguished and merged with the claim of ownership. Once the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 claimed to be the owner of the property, then they could not have acquired the status of either tenant or tiller, therefore, there can be no entry of the said respondents being in possession or protected tenants in kharif 1971 or any other time. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Ramban had no occasion to adjudicate upon the question whether or not mutations under sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act should be attested in favour of respondent Nos. 6 to 9, as he was seisin of only the suit transferred to him, wherein the only question involved was the issuance or refusal of injunction as prayed for in that suit. Therefore, he exceeded his jurisdiction by directing Tehsildar to attest mutation under the said provisions in favour of the respondents. In fact, without any enquiry as to the actual possession on the spot as envisaged under the Agrarian Reforms Rules, Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Ramban proceeded to pass the order. 6. The petitioner has further pleaded that he was not aware about the mutation bearing No. 784 attested on 08.04.2004, as the same has been ante dated, so as to make it appear that it was attested on the aforesaid date and once the order of the Add. Deputy Commissioner is set aside, this mutation would also pale into insignificance. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that as per his information, no mutation under section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act has been attested in favour of the private 5 OWP No. 737/2008 respondents. Precisely, it is contention of the petitioner that mutation under section 4 would be inconsequential, as the order dated 21.04.1992 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are the contesting respondents and in their response, they have raised preliminary objection that the concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the revenue authorities on the basis of revenue record and as such, they cannot be disturbed while exercising writ jurisdiction. It is further stated that the answering respondents were in cultivating possession of the land as tillers prior to kharif 1971, during kharif 1971 and thereafter continuously, which is supported by the khasra girdawari of the land in question pertaining to the year 1979 onwards. It is further urged that it is settled law that for the purpose of attestation of mutation under section 4 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and conferment of ownership rights under section 8 of the said Act, the relevant revenue entry of cultivation as tiller is khariff 1971 only and not any other entry. It is submitted that all the authorities below, on the basis of revenue records, have concurrently held that the respondents 8 & 9 were in cultivating possession of the land in question as „tillers‟ in kharief 1971, which fact has been admitted by the petitioner in para-5 of his petition that on the basis of gift deed his possession was recorded in kharief 1976. Once the answering respondents were found in possession of the land, as such, mutation under sections 4 and 8 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 has rightly been attested in their favour, which have not been impugned till date. On factual aspects, it is stated that Dhana and 6 OWP No. 737/2008 Badna were two real brothers having their landed property. Badna was survived by his two sons namely, Arjun and Mansa who are still alive. Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were in the cultivating possession of land comprising khasra Nos. 557 measuring 6 kanals and 10 marals and 6 kanals comprising khasra No. 560 situated at Village Hochak in Tehsil Banihal prior to 1971 and even thereafter. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim the share of Badna, which has now been mutated in favour of answering respondents being tillers/protected tenants of kharief 1971. It is also stated that merely because gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner was held valid by the High Court does not amount to annulment of the tenancy of the answering respondents after coming into force of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. The record of the previous litigation would also show that the answering respondents were in cultivating possession of the land in question since Bikrami 1992 as tenants and the issue of tenancy was never decided by any court in the earlier round of litigation. It is further submitted that after coming into force of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, fresh right of ownership of the land in question had accrued in favour of the answering respondents being „tillers‟ of the same in kharief 1971, which is the cut-off date for conferment of such rights of ownership and the earlier round of litigation prior to coming into force of the Agrarian Reforms Act cannot have any bearing upon the rights accrued in the respondent Nos. 8 & 9. 8 & 9. The respondents 8 & 9 have denied that the petitioner was ever in possession of the property in kharief 1971. They have also denied the construction of any house on the said 7 OWP No. 737/2008 land. The answering respondents have further denied that the house was given on rent to the Government Primary School Hatinahal. Rather, the fact remains that the land in question was in continuous possession and cultivation of the answering respondents prior to kharief 1971 and even in kharif 1971. It is further stated that the land was donated by the answering respondents on the request of inhabitants of the area and the school building was constructed by contributions of the villagers and this fact is proved from the written Tehrir-Nama of the villagers dated 20.05.1989 and a unanimous resolution passed by the villagers in a meeting held with the regard to the School Building on 16.05.1995. The alleged rent receipt was once manipulated by the petitioner which was seriously objected by the villagers and thereafter no rent was paid to anyone for the said school building. So far as the affidavit of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are concerned, the said affidavits have been manipulated by the petitioner after making payment to the said respondents in order to show possession to the extent of their share i.e. to the extent of 3 kanals of land in khasra No. 560 and these affidavits have no legal value in view of the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act. It is further submitted that as per section 28-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act, there is clear prohibition on transfer of land or any right, interest in manner covered under the Agrarian Reforms Act. It is also stated that the alleged mutation No. 504 of 1975 was attested in favour of the petitioner on the basis of said gift deed and thereafter, the petitioner got an entry recorded in his name in kharief 1976 in the revenue record for the first time after coming into force of the Agrarian Reforms 8 OWP No. 737/2008 Act without any possession. The said entry was wrongly recorded and the same was challenged by the answering respondents before the then SDM Ramban and was ultimately set aside on 02.02.1979. Arguments: 8. Mr. R. S. Thakur, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that once the contesting private respondents claimed to be the owners of the land and challenged the title of the petitioner but without any success, they cannot claim themselves to be a „tiller‟ within the meaning of Agrarian Reforms Act. He has further argued that the Additional Deputy Commissioner could not have directed the attestation of the mutation, when he was only seized of dispute in respect of the injunction. He has laid much stress that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who had earlier passed order dated 21.04.1992 in the earlier suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, again passed the subsequent order in appeal against the order dated 21.04.1992, which renders the order dated 28.02.2003 illegal. 9. Per contra, Mr. B. S. Bali, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 8 and 9, who are the contesting respondents has defended the order dated 21.04.1992 by submitting that the same has rightly been passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramban being Collector and the subsequent order was passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner being Commissioner Agrarian Reforms on 28.02.2003. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 has also argued that the concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by three authorities under the Act and 9 OWP No. 737/2008 the same cannot be disturbed while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. He has further stated that the earlier round of litigation was only with regard to the validity of the gift deed which has got nothing to do with regard to the possession of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9, who were in possession of the property right from the year 1969 onwards as protected tenants. He has also submitted that the Agrarian Reforms Act has overriding effect on all the judgments decrees passed by the court prior to the enforcement of Agrarian Reforms Act and vide SO 59 of 1997 dated 03.02.1997 the powers of the Commissioner under the Agrarian Reforms Act were conferred upon all the Deputy Commissioners except Additional Deputy Commissioner of Jammu and Srinagar and as such, the appeal was rightly decided by Additional Deputy Commissioner Ramban while exercising power of Commissioner under Agrarian Reforms Act. He has relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Sambhu Das alias Bijoy Das and anr. v. State of Assam, AIR 2010 SC 3300, KondibaDagad Kadam v Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others, AIR 1999 SC 2213 and judgment of this Court in Gori Shankar vs Mangoo Ram and others, (2004) 2 JKJ 152. 10. Heard and perused the record. Discussion: 11. The first contention raised by the petitioner is that once the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 had lost in the earlier round of litigation, wherein a challenge was thrown to the gift deed executed in favour of petitioner, they cannot object the ownership and possession of the petitioner in subsequent 10 OWP No. 737/2008 litigation. Initially, the suit filed against the petitioner was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.1969, however, the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1969 by virtue of judgement dated 22.06.1972. In para-9 of the judgment dated 22.06.1972, it has been observed that the plaintiffs still continue as tenants paying cash rent in the revenue record as is evident from the statement of Patwari Abdul Gani DW and it has been simultaneously observed that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they acquired the title over the suit land under a valid document of title or by way of prescription. With these observations, the judgment of the trial court dated 31.03.1969 was set aside. 12. This Court vide order dated 04.04.1974 dismissed the civil second appeal preferred by the appellants therein and thereafter mutation bearing No. 504 was attested on 29.06.1975. Thereafter a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed on 29.03.1977 against the petitioner and one Kamla, wherein it was stated that the plaintiffs therein were in cultivating possession as protected tenants since long and the petitioner with the connivance of the revenue authorities had got his name entered in the girdawari of 1976 and under the garb of said entry, he was trying to evict the plaintiffs therein by force. In the suit, it was the stand of the plaintiffs that they were the protected tenants and entitled to get proprietary rights over the land. The suit was transferred by the learned Sub-Judge Ramban to Deputy Commissioner (Collector Agrarian Reforms) Doda in January, 1979 and remained with him till 1981 and in 11 OWP No. 737/2008 the year 1981, it was transferred to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramban, Collector Agrarian Reforms for disposal under law. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the entry made in the Girdawri of 1976 was set aside by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramban vide his order dated 02.02.1979. Before respondent No. 4, it was projected by the contesting respondents that they were entitled to proprietary rights under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. The petitioner in turn had objected the claim of the contesting respondents that the petitioner was the owner of the land pursuant to the gift deed executed by Devia and he, being the owner of the land is entitled to the possession thereof (Page-2 of the order dated 21.04.1992). 13. A perusal of the revenue record reveals that in the revenue record of the year 1969-70, Chura and Chuni Lal s/o Lajpat have been shown to be in possession of land in respect of survey Nos. 557 as „protected tenants‟. Chura and others have been shown as „protected tenants‟ in respect of land comprising khasra No. 560 situated at Village Hochak. Further, the same position continues for the kharif 1971, wherein also the status of Chura and Chuni Lal and others have been referred to as „protected tenants‟. Even the judgment of the appellate court has referred to the status of the respondents in the said appeal as „tenants‟. From the record, this Court finds that the status of the contesting respondents was that of protected tenants right from the year 1969 till 1971. Merely the dismissal of the suit whereby challenge was thrown to the gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner would not alter the status of the contesting respondents as 12 OWP No. 737/2008 protected tenants, particularly when in the revenue record right from the year 1969, they have been mentioned as protected tenants. 14. This Court in Civil 2nd Appeal had only decided the issue of gift deed and not the issue of possession of the land in question. The only question which arose for consideration before the authorities was as to who was in possession of the land in question in the year, kharief 1971. All the authorities have concurrently held that the contesting respondents were in possession of the land in kharief 1971. Merely one entry in the year, 1976 would not make any difference particularly when the said entry was set aside by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ramban. That entry was made after the decision of the this Court, particularly when there was no such finding with regard to the possession of the suit land, meaning thereby that the issue of possession was not decided by the civil courts. The entry, if any, was erroneous in nature which was rightly set aside by the SDM, Ramban and this fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. Once the petitioner was not in possession of the land, he cannot claim any right on the basis of gift deed, as by operation of law i.e. Agrarian Reforms Act, his title, if any stood extinguished. Even if, the contesting respondents raised the issue of acquisition of ownership by virtue of agreement to sell but could not succeed but they continued to be in possession of the property and with enforcement of Agrarian Reforms Act, were declared prospective owners in terms of section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms and acquired ownership under section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act by depositing the requisite levy. In “Mst. Ashmi vs. Assistant 13 OWP No. 737/2008 Commissioner & Ors. , 2007 (3) JKJ 481, the Coordinate Bench of this court has held as under: 12. Applying the test laid down by the Apex Court, the pre- emptor stepped into the shoes of original vendee and became the owner by way of substitution. But keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it could not be held and said that the original vendee who was protected tenant before the execution of sale deed lost his right/status. 13. Respondents have specifically averred in the reply/counter that mutation No. 277 dated 25th of May, 1994 under Section 4 of the Act and 299 dated 10th of February, 1992 under Section 8 of the Act came to be passed whereby and whereunder Assad Wani came to be declared as prospective owner and after depositing the levy came to be declared as owner in terms of the mutation attested under Section 8 of the Act. 14. Neither respondents have challenged the mutations right from the date of orders nor they have even challenged the same even from the dates reply/counter came to be filed. Thus, in the given circumstances, this writ petition merits to be dismissed. (emphasis added) 15. This Court is of the considered view that the order of the civil courts with regard to the determining of the validity of the gift deed will have no bearing upon the status of the contesting respondents or their predecessors-in-interest as „protected tenants‟. 16. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that the order dated 21.04.1992 was passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, (Collector under the Agrarian Reforms Act) and the appeal too was decided by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 28.02.2003, which is not permissible under law. 17. At first blush, the argument that the same officer initially passed the order and also decided the appeal filed against the same order, appears to be very catchy and attractive but pales into insignificance in view of SO 59 of 1997 dated 03.02.1997, whereby Additional Deputy 14 OWP No. 737/2008 Commissioners of all the Districts other than Districts of Jammu and Srinagar, were vested with powers of Commissioners to hear appeals under the Agrarian Reforms Act. Initially, the appeal was decided vide order dated 21.04.1992 by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramban as Collector under the Agrarian Reforms Act and thereafter, the appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Doda but thereafter as the powers of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner were vested with Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramban, the appeal was transferred to Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramban who decided the same vide order dated 28.02.2003 by the Commissioner under the Agrarian Reforms Act. This contention of the petitioner is required to be appreciated by keeping in mind the hierarchy of the officers in terms of section 21 of the Act, which provides for the remedies against the orders passed by the officers. In terms of Section 21 of the Act, the order passed by the Collector is appealable before Commissioner Agrarian, Reforms Act. This argument could have been accepted, had the same officer decided the appeal against the initial order passed by him acting both as Collector and Commissioner under the Agrarian Reforms Act, but this is not the issue in the present case, therefore, this contention too is rejected. Respondent No.1 also has returned a similar finding that under Section 21 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, the appeal against the order passed by the Collector shall lie before the Commissioner and the powers of Commissioner were conferred upon Add. Deputy Commissioner Ramban vide SO 59 of 1997 and orders were not passed by the same person. 15 OWP No. 737/2008 18. Lastly, it was contended that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Collector) was not competent and had no jurisdiction to pass the order under sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. In terms of section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, all rights, title or interest in any land of any person, who was not cultivating the land personally in kharief 1971, shall be deemed to have been extinguished and vested in the State. In fact, by operation of law i.e. Agrarian Reforms Act, all rights, title and interest of any person in land, which is not under his personal cultivation in kharief 1971 extinguished and vested in the State. The learned Sub Judge, Ramban was examining the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction wherein the plaintiffs therein had also pleaded that they were entitled to get proprietary rights over the land and taking into consideration the issue of possession involved in the suit, learned Sub- Judge Ramban transferred the suit to Deputy Commissioner (Collector under the Agrarian Reforms Act) Doda to adjudicate the same under the Agrarian Reforms Act, who in turn transferred the same to Addl. Deputy Commissioner, (Collector under Agrarian Reforms Act), Ramban i.e. respondent No.4. The petitioner in the appeal preferred before the respondent No. 3, did not raise any such issue with regard to the competence of the respondent No. 3 to decide the controversy. In the revision preferred before the learned Special Tribunal, it was pleaded by the petitioner in para 5 of the revision petition that the respondents filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner on 29.03.1977 and the said suit was transferred to the Deputy Commissioner (Collector Doda) and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, 16 OWP No. 737/2008 Doda transferred the same to SDM Ramban in the year, 1981. The SDM without hearing the petition passed a wrong order in favour of the respondents. The respondents had made an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner Ramban for declaring them as prospective owner of the land in dispute and the said application was accepted without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Additional Deputy Commissioner directed the Tehsildar Banihal for attestation of mutation under sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. 19. So far as declaring the contesting respondents as prospective owners under section 4 is concerned, the respondent No. 3 has merely put the law into operation after examining the revenue record and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as is reflected from the arguments raised by the petitioner before the respondent No. 4 and recorded in the order impugned dated 21.04.1992. In this context it would be relevant to take note of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Gouri Shanker’s case(supra). The relevant paras are extracted as under: “It be seen that section 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act extinguishes the rights of the owners not in cultivating possession as in kharif 1971 and vests the land in the State. Section 4 reads as under:- 4-Vesting in the State of rights in land not held in personal cultivation-(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of this Chapter, all rights, title and interest in land of any person, not cultivating it personally in kharif 1971,shall be deemed to have extinguished and vested in the State, free from encumbrances, with effect from the first day of May 1973. 17. The section opens with a non-abstante clause and thus incorporates an exception to the general law and declares the extinguishment of all rights, title and interest of any 17 OWP No. 737/2008 person in the land not cultivating it personally in kharif 1971 and vests the same in the State, free from encumbrances w.e.f. Ist day of May 1973.Such extinguishment is to be followed by a mutation to be attested under Chapter IV of Agrarian Reforms Rules 1977 made by the Government in exercise of the power vested u under section 40 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. Rule 12(2)provides for the recording of the tiller of the land who was cultivating the land inkharif 1971 as prospective owner in the tenant‟s column subject to his satisfying the conditions set out in the rule itself. In case the tiller who was personally cultivating the land in kharif 1971 has died before or after the stipulated date i.e. Ist May 1973 then who should be recorded as prospective owner, provision is made inthis behalf in the Rule 12 itself.” 20. The petitioner though has shown ignorance in respect of the attestation of the mutation under section 8 of the Act in favour of the contesting respondents, but as is evident from the response filed by the contesting respondents, mutation bearing Nos.808 and 809 have also been attested under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. The mutation under Section 4 has not been impugned by the petitioner though on the ground that once the order impugned dated 21.04.1992 is quashed, the subsequent mutations would automatically get quashed. 21. There are concurrent findings of fact by all the authorities and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any perversity and illegality in the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot sit as a court of appeal or exercise the jurisdiction as revisional court. The only duty of this Court is to examine whether there is any jurisdictional error on the part of the authorities or existence of any perversity in the order. This Court after examining the orders passed by respondents 1, 3 and 4 dated 11.07.2008, 28.02.2003 and 21.04.1992 respectively has come to the 18 OWP No. 737/2008 conclusion that the orders have been passed well within the parameters of the law and there is neither any jurisdictional error nor perversity in the orders impugned, as such, this Court does not find any reason to show indulgence. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in “Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das”, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 996 has examined the scope of Writ of Certiorari and has observed as under: 51. The first cardinal principle of law that governs the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari is that in granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking. 52. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable 19 OWP No. 737/2008 consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not. (emphasis added) 22. For all what has been discussed, observed and analysed hereinabove, the present writ petition is found to be misconceived, the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the remedy as available under law for assailing the mutations under Sections 4 and 8 under the Agrarian Reforms Act, if so advised. 23. Dismissed. 24. Record, if received in original, be sent back. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu: 02.05.2025 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes KARAM CHAND 2025.05.03 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document