HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA No. 84/2022 in OWP No. 1457/2014 Dated: 8th of July, 2025. Fateh Ali Khan, Age: 86 Years S/O Mutwali Khan R/O Prada Tehsil Karnah, District Kupwara. … Appellant(s) Through: - Mr Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate. V/s 1. J&K Special Tribunal through its Registrar. 2. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara. 3. Tehsildar, Karnah. 4. Khursheed Ahmad Bhat 5. Abdul Rashid Bhat 6. Abdul Qayoom Bhat 7. Abdul Hamid Bhat Respondents 4 to 7 Sons of Jamal Bhat 8. Mst. Zareena 9. Shareena Begum Respondents 8 & 9 daughters of Jamal Bhat Respondents 4 to 9 Residents of Prada, Karnah, Kupwara. … Respondent(s) Through: - Mr Mir Manzoor, Advocate for R-4 to 9. CORAM: Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge. Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Parihar, Judge. (JUDGMENT) LPA No. 84/2022 in OWP No. 1457/2014 Sanjeev Kumar-J: 01. This intra Court appeal arises out of an Order and Judgment dated 21st of December, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“the Writ Court”] in OWP No. 1457/2014 titled ‘Fateh Ali Khan v. J&K Special Tribunal & Ors.’. 02. Briefly put, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the Appellant herein claims to have purchased land measuring 01 Kanal under Khasra No. 464 Min, 10 Marlas under Khasra No. 465 Min and 10 Marlas under Khasra No. 469 Min of village Pradha, Tehsil Karna (“the subject land”) for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- by way of an agreement to sell executed in his favour by the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 herein. 03. The Appellant, with a view to get the title of the subject land transferred in his name, approached the Revenue authorities for attestation of mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. It was the case pleaded before the Revenue authorities that since the execution of the agreement to sell, the Appellant had been in cultivating possession of the subject land and had paid the entire sale consideration. 04. On the basis of the application so made by the Appellant and while recording the factum of cultivating possession of the Appellant in Kharif 1971 qua the subject land by way of ‘Sehat-e-Indraj’, mutations under Sections 4 and 8 were attested in favour of the Appellant herein. 05. The said mutations were challenged by Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 herein by way of an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara with the powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms. The appeals were allowed and both the mutations were set aside by the Appellate Authority vide Order dated 2nd of February, 2013 and the matter was remanded back to Tehsildar, Karnah for de-novo enquiry. LPA No. 84/2022 in OWP No. 1457/2014 06. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant herein challenged the Order dated 2nd of February, 2013 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara before the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Srinagar by way of a Revision Petition which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide its Order dated 9th of July, 2014 with the modification that there would be no requirement for holding de-novo enquiry. 07. The Order dated 2nd of February, 2013 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara as well as the one passed by the Tribunal dated 9th of July, 2014 were challenged by the Appellant herein before the Writ Court through the medium of OWP No. 1457/2014. The said Writ Petition has been dismissed by the Writ Court vide Order and Judgment impugned in this appeal. 08. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Judgment passed by the Writ Court is perfectly legal and falls within the four corners of law and, therefore, deserves to be upheld. 09. A mutation under Section 4 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 can only be attested in favour of a ‘tiller’ and a ‘tiller’ would mean a tenant in cultivating possession of the land in Kharif, 1971. It is the admitted case of the Appellant herein that he came in possession of the subject land somewhere in the year 1989 after the owner of the said land executed an agreement to sell for valid consideration. If that is the admitted position, it is difficult to understand as to how the Appellant herein could be shown to be in cultivating possession of the subject land in Kharif, 1971. Therefore, the very basis of attestation of mutation under Section 4 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 was non-existent. It is because of this reason that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, exercising powers of the Appellate Authority under the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, set aside the mutation under Section 4 and the LPA No. 84/2022 in OWP No. 1457/2014 consequential mutation attested under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. 10. From the material available on record before us, what emerges is that there possibly may have been a transaction between the predecessor- in-interest of Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 herein and the Appellant herein for sale of the subject land. Since, the sale of the agricultural land held by an owner for cultivation could not have been transferred or sold without violating the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, as such, the parties may have devised a mechanism of misusing the provisions of the Act of 1976 and got the mutations attested under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act of 1976. We do not wish to express any opinion or record any finding on this aspect of the matter as we are told that a civil Suit with regard to the subject land filed by Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 herein is pending adjudication before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tangdar. The Appellant is well within his right to appear and contest the said Suit and may even take a defense or put up a claim on the basis of the agreement to sell allegedly executed by the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 herein. 11. For us, suffice it to say that in the given circumstances, mutations under Section 4 and 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 could not have been attested by the mutating authorities. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority under the Act of 1976 have correctly taken the view and set aside the said mutations. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant herein. 12. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim direction(s), if any subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated. We, however, make it clear that nothing said by us in this Judgment or, for that matter, by any Forum shall LPA No. 84/2022 in OWP No. 1457/2014 prejudice the rights of the parties which are subject matter of adjudication before the civil Court. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge SRINAGAR July 8th, 2025 “TAHIR” i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes/No. Tahir Manzoor Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document