HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on 07.04.2025 Pronounced on 24.04.2025 OWP No. 194/2019 Des Raj and others …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. H. C. Jalmeria, Adv. vs State of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for Nos. 1 to 5 Mr. G. S. Thakur, Adv. for No. 6 Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMETNT 1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 26.12.2018 passed by respondent No. 2, J&K Special Tribunal whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners against order dated 20.04.2017 passed by respondent No. 3 has been dismissed. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 20.04.2017 passed by respondent No. 3 whereby the appeal against Mutation No. 385 dated 21.12.1983 attested under section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act and appeal against Mutation No. 410 dated 17.09.1987 attested under section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of the land measuring 17 kanals 17 marlas in khasra No. 515/300 and land measuring 12 kanals 17 marlas in khasra No. 515/300 min situated at Village Bangal Tehsil Katra, District Reasi has been dismissed. 2. According to the petitioners, grandfathers of petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and grandfather of respondent No. 6 were real brothers. They had purchased 2 OWP No.194/2019 occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 61 kanals 7 marlas under khasra No. 515/300 situated at Village Bangal, Tehsil Katra from one Jagat Ram way back in the year, 2001 Bikrami, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 4th Jeth 2001 Bikrami. It is being claimed that total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 130/- out of which Rs. 78/- was paid by grandfathers of petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4, whereas Rs. 52/- were paid by the grandfather of respondent No. 4. Thus, grandfathers of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 became occupancy tenants of land measuring 36 kanals 13 marlas and grandfather of respondent No. 6 became occupancy tenants of land measuring 24 kanals 10 marlas. It is being claimed by the petitioners that they are in cultivating possession of their respective shares in the land in question. However, respondent No. 6 is stated to have manipulated the revenue record and he got illegal mutations attested in his favour under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act. 3. It has been further submitted that even though the land in question has been in continuous and uninterrupted personal cultivation of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest, still then the mutations under sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of the said land in favour of respondent No. 6 came to be attested, which is illegal. It has been submitted that the land in question could not have been made subject matter of the Agrarian Reforms Act under sections 4 and 8 of the said Act, but respondent No. 6 manipulated the things and got illegal mutations attested in his favour, which are bearing No. 385 dated 21.12.1983 under section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act and No. 410 3 OWP No.194/2019 dated 17.09.1987 under section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act with respect to land under khasra No. 515/300. 4. The petitioners claim that the aforesaid mutations were attested at their back and they had no occasion to know about the attestation of the said mutations because they were all along cultivating the land in question. It is only in January, 2014 when respondent No. 4 started laying his claim over the land in question that the petitioners came to know about the attestation of the mutations under sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act and accordingly, they filed an appeal before respondent No. 3 along with an application for condonation of delay. However, vide impugned order dated 20.04.2017, their appeal came to be dismissed without assigning any reasons. 5. It has been submitted that the petitioners after obtaining certified copy of order dated 20.04.2017 filed revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal respondent No. 2 herein, which came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal in terms of the impugned order. 6. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders on the grounds that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the controversy in its correct perspective and that the grounds urged by the petitioners have not been addressed by the learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned order. It has been submitted that the mutations attested under sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of the land in question are totally illegal as the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act do not apply to the land in question. It has been contended that the petitioners have always been in cultivating possession of the land in question. Therefore, Agrarian 4 OWP No.194/2019 Reforms Act could not have been made applicable to the case of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the mutations were attested in violation of the Standing Order No. 23-A as they were not present on spot at the relevant time. It has been further contended that the petitioners had sufficiently explained the delay in filing the appeal as well as the revision petition but the authorities below failed to appreciate the reasons assigned by the petitioners. 7. Respondent No. 6 has filed his reply in which it has been submitted that the Mutations were attested in presence of one of the co-sharers of the petitioners and in presence of their predecessors-in-interest, as such, factum of attestation of the mutations was in the knowledge of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest, but they did not choose to challenge the mutations within the prescribed period of limitation. It has been further contended that the petitioners have failed to assign any reason much less a cogent reason for approaching the authorities below beyond the prescribed period of limitation and that their challenge to the impugned mutations is highly belated. It has been submitted that the tenancy rights in respect of the land in question were purchased in equal shares by the predecessors-in-interest of the parties and not in the proportion as has been claimed by the petitioners. According to the respondent No. 6, the petitioners became occupancy tenants in respect of land measuring 30 kanals and 13 marlas, whereas balance half share of 30 kanals and 14 marlas fell to the share of his predecessors-in-interest. 8. According to respondent No. 6, the mutations were attested in presence of predecessor in interest of the petitioners, namely, Munshi who was son of 5 OWP No.194/2019 Late Sant Ram and he sold his share to one Omkar Singh, father of petitioner No. 1. It has been further submitted that the father of petitioner No. 1, Ambi challenged the said sale deed before Sub Judge Reasi by filing a suit for pre-emption and at that time, the attestation of mutations was within the knowledge of Ambi, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner No. 1. Hence, it cannot be stated that the petitioners were not in knowledge of the attestation of mutations. It has been further contended that even the mutation of inheritance in favour of father of respondent No.6 was attested in presence of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, who were present in the camp, but they did not object to the same and now they cannot challenge the attestation of mutations by pleading that they did not know about the attestation of the mutations under sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. 9. Respondent No. 3 has also filed the reply to the writ petition in which it has been submitted that prospective and absolute ownership rights with respect to the land measuring 17 kanals 17 marlas falling under khasra No. 515/300 and the land measuring 12 kanals 17 marlas falling under khasra No. 515/300 min situated at Village Bhangal were vested upon Isher Dass S/o. Rassila, father of respondent No. 6 vide mutation No. 385 dated 21.12.1983 attested under section 4 and mutation No. 410 dated 17.09.1987 attested under section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. 10. 10. The aforesaid Mutations were challenged by the petitioners before respondent No. 3 but the appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2017 and challenge to the said order was upheld by the J&K Special Tribunal vide impugned order dated 26.12.2018. It has been submitted 6 OWP No.194/2019 that the Mutations were attested in the years 1983 and 1987 but the appeals were filed after a gap of three decades without giving any justifiable reasons, therefore, the same came to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 12. It appears that Mutation No. 385 dated 21.12.1983 came to be attested in respect of the land in question in favour of father of respondent No. 6 in the year, 1983 and thereafter, mutation No. 410 dated 17.09.1987 under section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act came to be attested in his favour. It also appears that after the death of father of respondent No. 6, mutation of inheritance in respect of the aforesaid land came to be attested in favour of respondent No. 6. It also appears that initially the mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of Isher Dass, the father of respondent No. 6, when Sh. Rasila, the father of Isher Dass had died and at that time, predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were very much present on spot but they raised no objection with regard to the attestation of mutation of inheritance. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest were not having knowledge that half share of the land in question was mutated in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 6. Since the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 6 had purchased tenancy rights in respect of the land in question in respect of the half share, therefore, they were entitled to be conferred proprietary rights to the extent of their share in the land in question after coming into force of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act. 7 OWP No.194/2019 13. The claim of the petitioners that they were owners of the tenancy rights to the extent of the share of sale consideration which they had paid at the time of purchase of tenancy rights, is without any substance, because they did not object to attestation of mutation of inheritance to the extent of half of the land in question, which was subject matter of agreement dated 4th Jeth 2001 Bikrami in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 6 though the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were present on spot. Once they conceded to the attestation of mutations in respect of the land in question to the extent of half share in favour of predecessor-in- interest respondent No. 6, they cannot turn around and challenge the attestation of mutations under Agrarian Reforms Act in terms of sections 4 and 8 of the said Act to the extent of the share of predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 6 in his favour that too after a gap of more than three decades. 14. The record shows that the petitioners while filing their appeal against the impugned mutations before respondent No. 3 did not assign any cogent reason for filing the said appeal belatedly. Respondent No. 3, therefore, rightly declined to entertain the appeal and to go into the merits of the same. The learned Tribunal also upheld the contention of respondent No. 6 that the appeals filed by the petitioners were grossly time barred. Learned Tribunal has, while holding the appeal of the petitioners time barred, noted that at the time of attestation of mutation of inheritance in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 6, in the ratio of 50:50, the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were present on spot and therefore, they were in knowledge of the fact that respondent No. 6 8 OWP No.194/2019 and his predecessor-in-interest were tenants of the land in question to the extent of half share. The findings of the learned Tribunal that the challenge to the impugned mutations by the petitioners is barred by the time, is therefore, based on the material on record and does not suffer from any perversity. 15. This Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction is not expected to re- appreciate the material on record as an appellate forum. Once it is found that there is no perversity in the findings arrived at by the authorities below and there is not jurisdictional error committed by the said authorities, it would not be open to this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below. As already stated, the findings of the Tribunal and the appellate authority are based on the material available on record, as such, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition is devoid of any merit. The same is dismissed, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu: 24.04.2025 Rakesh PS Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Rakesh Kumar 2025.04.24 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document