HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C ) No. 915/2025 CM No. 3214/2025 Nazir Ahmed ….petitoner Through :- Mr. Anies Mohd Advocate. V/s UT of Jammu and Kashmir and ors Through :- Ms Monika Kohli Sr. AAG Mr. R.S.Jain Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranav Jain Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE JUDGMENT(ORAL) 1 By this petition, the petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing order dated 08.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, exercising the powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, Jammu, in the appeal titled „Nazir Ahmed vs Tehsildar Bahu and others‟, whereby the interim order dated 03.12.2024 was vacated. Factual matrix: 2 The father of the petitioner, Din Mohammad, was in cultivating possession of land measuring 09 kanals and 18 marlas falling under Khasra No. 164 situated at village Narwal Bala, Tehsil Bahu, District Jammu, along with his brother Kareem Baksh. The cultivating possession of the said land was recorded exclusively in the name of Din Mohammad till kharif 1967. It 2 is alleged that, with the connivance of revenue field officials, the name of father of the petitioner, Din Mohammad was deleted from the register of Khasra Girdwari, and the name of Kareem Baksh, father and grandfather of private respondents, was entered. Although both brothers were cultivating the land jointly, the name of Din Mohammad was removed without any notice, and the name of Kareem Baksh was reflected in the khasra girdwari for the first time in the year 1968, continuing through Kharif, 1971. It is submitted that since both the brothers were cultivating the land jointly, the names of both the brothers should have been recorded in cultivating possession of the said land. It is stated that as per the Khasra Girdwari of Kharif 1967 up to April 1968, Din Mohd was exclusively recorded as the cultivator for Khasra No. 164. It is submitted that the revenue officials, with mala fide intention and to grant undue benefit, removed the name of Din Mohd from the record in Rabbi 1968 and entered the name of Kareem Baksh. On the basis of this manipulated entry in Kharif 1971, prospective ownership rights were granted to Kareem Baksh under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as „Act of 1976‟). 3 According to the revenue records, both Din Mohammad and Kareem Baksh were protected tenants and were in personal cultivation. The term "personal cultivation" has been clearly defined in Section 2(12) of the Act of 1976, which includes cultivation by a person himself or by any member of his family. Thus, even if the name of Din Mohammad was expunged, he continued to be in personal cultivation of the land.It is contended that Mutation No. 340, under Section 4 of the Act, was attested by the revenue authorities without considering the claim of Din Mohammad. Similarly, Mutation No. 515, dated 25.05.1985, was attested under Section 8 3 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, in favour of Kareem Baksh without the knowledge of Din Mohammad or the petitioner.The petitioner only became aware of the said mutations in September 2024, when the private respondents attempted to create third-party interest in the disputed land, which continues to be under joint cultivation. Consequently, the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction before the Civil Court. 4 After verifying the attestation of mutations under Sections 4 and 8 from the revenue agency, the petitioner filed two separate appeals against Mutation Nos. 320 and 515, along with applications for condonation of delay and interim relief, before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, who is vested with the powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms. Vide order dated 03.12.2024, the said authority passed an interim status quo order till the next date of hearing, i.e., 08.01.2025. However, on 08.01.2025, when counsel for the private respondents appeared, Respondent No. 2 vacated the interim order dated 03.12.2024 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 5 On 21.04.2025, this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, stayed the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2. 6 Respondents No. 4 to 8 (the contesting respondents) have filed an application seeking vacation of the interim order dated 21.04.2025 and have also filed objections to the present writ petition. In their objections, respondents No. 4 to 8, while reiterating the submissions made in the application seeking vacation of interim order, have stated that the petitioner has filed two separate applications for condonation of delay of more than 4 forty years in filing appeals against Mutation Nos. 320 and 515. It is alleged that the petitioner misrepresented the facts in order to obtain an ex parte interim order. Upon appearance before respondent No.2-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, they informed him about the pendency of civil suits regarding the same subject matter, and after hearing them, Respondent No. 2 did not find it appropriate to continue the interim order dated 03.12.2024. Accordingly, respondent No.2 vacated the said interim order and directed listing of the matter on 08.03.2025. 7 The contesting respondents have also argued that the applications for condonation of delay are still pending adjudication before Respondent No. 2 and that the petitioner should have approached that forum instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot maintain a single writ petition against two separate interim orders passed in two separate proceedings, and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9 Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 08.01.2025 is legally unsustainable as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that no reasons have been assigned by the authority for vacating the interim order, which is contrary to the settled position of law requiring reasoned orders in matters affecting civil rights. 10 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that the appellate authority ought to have first adjudicated upon the applications for condonation of delay before proceeding to consider the prayer 5 for interim relief and that the delay of forty years in filing the appeals renders the proceedings non-maintainable. 11 The present controversy arises out of a longstanding land dispute relating to land measuring 09 kanals and 18 marlas, falling under Khasra No. 164, situated at village Narwal Bala, Tehsil Bahu, District Jammu. 12. Upon considering the rival submissions and perusing the record, it is evident that the petitioner has filed two separate appeals before respondent No.2 against the attestation of two separate mutations, i.e., Mutation No. 340 under Section 4 and Mutation No. 515 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act pertaining to the same land. It is also not in dispute that the said appeals are accompanied by separate applications seeking condonation of delay of over forty years, which are still pending consideration before the appellate authority. Notwithstanding the pendency of the condonation applications, the appellate authority proceeded to grant interim relief, thereby maintaining status quo in respect of the land in question. However, vide subsequent order dated 08.01.2025, the said interim protection was vacated by the appellate authority. 13 The petitioner‟s primary grievance is that the said order dated 08.01.2025 vacating the interim relief was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. It is submitted that the petitioner was not heard prior to the vacation of the interim relief. For facility of reference, the said order dated 08.01.2025 is reproduced hereunder: “Presented today on 08.01.2025. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. Appellant absent. It is ordered that status quo order 6 dated 03.12.2024 which was issued for next date of hearing i.e 08.01.2025 is hereby vacated”. 14 Upon perusal of the aforesaid impugned order, this Court finds merit in the petitioner‟s submission that the interim relief was vacated without hearing him. The impugned order does not record the presence or submissions of the petitioner. It is a settled legal proposition that no order affecting the rights of a party should be passed without affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The principle of audi alteram partem mandates that all parties likely to be affected by an order must be granted an opportunity to be heard. 15 In State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269, and in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Supreme Court has categorically held that even administrative actions having civil consequences must conform to the principles of natural justice. The vacation of an interim order, granted in pending appeals, without notice to the beneficiary thereof, is procedurally improper and cannot be sustained. At the same time, it is also a well-settled principle that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and should ordinarily not be exercised where an efficacious alternative remedy exists. In the present case, the challenge is not to a final determination of rights but only to the vacation of interim protection. The appeals and the applications for condonation of delay are pending disposal before the appellate Authority 16 This Court is conscious of the fact that interference at an interlocutory stage, particularly in respect of interim orders, must be exercised with restraint. The appellate authority was within its jurisdiction to consider modification or vacation of interim orders. No manifest jurisdictional error or 7 perversity is apparent on the face of the impugned order, except the procedural lapse of non-hearing to the petitioner. 17 In view of the above discussion, this Court finds merit in the present petition to the limited extent that the order dated 08.01.2025 was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. However, this Court is also of the considered opinion that the writ petition, filed at the interlocutory stage and before the appeals are held to be maintainable, is premature and should not result in prolonged litigation before this Court when the matter is still pending before the competent statutory forum. 18 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) Order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the appellate authority is set aside, solely on the ground that it was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice; (ii) The appellate authority shall reconsider the question of interim relief afresh, after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the contesting respondents, and pass a reasoned order thereon. (iii) The appellate authority shall decide the pending applications seeking condonation of delay in both the appeals expeditiously and if at all the delay is condoned, the Appellate Authority shall proceed to hear the appeals on merits (iv) The petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy afresh upon a decision on the condonation applications, if the circumstances so warrant. 8 19 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 20 The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, and the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by this Court stands merged with this order. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Jammu 03.06.2025 Sanjeev Whether approved for judgment: Yes/No