HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- WP(C) No.1987/2022 CM No.5482/2022 Cav No.1087/2022 Dev Raj & Anr. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. K. S. Puri, Advocate Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Mr. S. K. Anand, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (20.08.2025) 1. The petitioner through the medium of the present writ petition has challenged order dated 06.08.2022 passed by respondent No.2-Additional Deputy Commissioner (Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, hereinafter the Appellate Authority), Rajouri by virtue of which the appeal filed by the private respondents against mutation No.155 dated 04.06.1989 under Section 04 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and mutation No.163 dated 08.07.1989 under Section 08 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, in respect of the land measuring 11 kanals 15 marla in Khasra No.55, 02 kanals 11 marla in khasra Serial No. 12 2 WP(C) No.1987/2022 No.56, 07 kanals and 19 marla in khasra No.58, 01 kanals 08 marla in khasra No.59, 11 kanals in khasra No.61, and 01 kanals and 09 marla in khasra No.65, 06 kanals and 09 marla in khasra No.66, situated at Village Kote Kabu Tehsil Kalakote District Rajouri has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Tehsildar- Kalakote for fresh inquiry. 2. Heard and considered. 3. It appears that the aforesaid mutation orders came to be attested in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioners and the said mutation orders came to be challenged by the private respondents by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority primarily on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the land in question does not qualify to be the “land” within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act. It was also contended that the private respondents/appellants were not heard before passing the mutation orders and that the said orders have been passed in violation of Standing Order 23-A. 4. Respondent No.2- the Appellate Authority after condoning the delay in filing the appeal remanded the case to the concerned Tehsildar for fresh inquiry with a further 3 WP(C) No.1987/2022 observation that mutations under Section 4 & 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act be effected if it qualifies or in the alternative, to restore the possession of the land in question in favour of the appellants/private respondents. However, while remanding the case to the Tehsildar, the Appellate Authority has in the penultimate para of the impugned order recorded a finding that land under khasra Nos.58, 59, 61 is recorded as „Kotha‟, „Gair Mumkin Add Bana‟, „Banjar Qadeem‟ over which Section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act is not applicable. 5. Once the Appellate Authority has recorded the aforesaid finding, the same becomes binding upon the concerned Tehsildar and it restricts the scope of the Tehsildar to hold an inquiry with regard to the nature of the land which is subject matter of the dispute between the parties. This Court feels that the Appellate Authority should have avoided to record a finding in this regard if it was of the opinion that matter needed to be inquired afresh by the concerned Tehsildar. 6. In view of the above, while upholding the impugned order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (the Appellate Authority), to the extent of remanding the matter to the concerned Tehsildar for fresh inquiry and orders, it is provided that the Tehsildar concerned shall 4 WP(C) No.1987/2022 not be bound by the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority as regards the nature of the land in question, while undertaking fresh inquiry and passing fresh orders in the matter. It is further directed that after holding the inquiry, the Tehsildar concerned shall pass appropriate orders in the light of the statutes and the rules governing the subject matter. 7. Disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 20.08.2025 Sneha