IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 1272/2020

Pronounced on 14.08.2026

Uploaded on 14.08.2026

Sunita Devi and Ors

...……….Petitioner(s)

Through: - Mr. R.K Jain, Sr. Adv with Assisting counsel

Vs.

Union territory of J&K & Ors

……….Respondent(s)

Through: - Ms. Mrinal, Assisting counsel to

Mrs. Monika Kohli, sr. AAG for R-1, 3 &4

Mr. F.S Bhat, Advocate for R-5 to 8.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI , JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. Through the medium of the instant writ petition, having been filed

in terms of provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the petitioners have sought the issuance of writ of certiorari for

quashing the order dated 23.07.2020 passed by the respondent

No.2-Ld J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, while hearing the Revision

petition against the order dated 25.05.2004 passed by the respondent

No.3-Ld Financial Commissioner with powers of Agrarian Reforms

Commissioner, Jammu.

2. The case of the petitioners is that their ancestor Ichru @ Achroo,

was the tenant of land comprising under Khasra Nos. 81, 82,83 and

84 situated at Toph Sherkhania Tehsil and District, Jammu

(hereinafter referred to as subject land) prior to 1950 and thereafter

also continued to be in the cultivating possession of the subject

2

land under his the then landlord Shri Raj Kumar Jai chand. That the

father of Shri Raj Kumar Jai chand was the then ―RAJA‖ of

Chenanie, (now part of the District Udhampur) and was a big

landlord having more than 3266 kanals of land situated at different

locations including village Rawalpora Tehsil Shri Pratap Singhpora

(Kashmir). That upon coming into the operation of the Big Landed

Estates Abolition Act (BLEAA for short) BK 2007 (1950 AD), the

ancestor of the private respondent’s i.e the Landlord namely Shri

Raj Kumar Jai chand as well as his brother Shri Raj Kumar Terath

Chand selected their respective units of land measuring 182 kanals

each, permissible to be retained under the BLEAA. That

accordingly, two separate mutations came to be attested with

respect to the units of the land selected by Sh. Raj Kumar Jai chand

and his brother Shr. Raj Kumar Terath chand, which fact also

amounted to the partition of land in between the said two

brothers/land owners. That the subject land was not selected by Sh.

Rajkumar Jai Chand and the same continued to be cultivated by

their (petitioners) ancestor Ichru@ Achroo who retained physical

possession of the same during his life time whereafter the same is

held continuously by them (petitioners).

That their ancestor Ichru @ Achroo was entitled to be

conferred the ownership rights vis-a-vis the subject land under the

operation of the BLEAA but due to non-cooperative attitude of the

Revenue Authorities, same got delayed during his lifetime. That

their said ancestor Ichru was a poor and illiterate person who

3

moved from pillar to post so as to get the due benefit of BLEAA

but unfortunately, he could not succeed until he died.

That however, during the lifetime of their said ancestor being,

the tiller of the subject land and before the ownership rights in

terms of Section 5 of the BLEAA could be conferred upon him in

respect of the subject land being in excess of ceiling units and also

being not identified/selected within the ceiling units by the

landlords, the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 (hereinafter referred

to as the Agrarian Act for short) came to be legislated and

enforced, extinguishing the rights of the land owners not found in

personal cultivation of the land as on 1

st

Sept. 1971. That their

ancestor Achroo also became qualified for conferment of ownership

rights in respect of the subject land under the operation of the

Agrarian Act who accordingly requested the concerned authorities

for conferment of such right in respect of the subject land for his

being in cultivating physical possession of the same on 1

st

Sept

1971 and much prior to that. That the then concerned revenue

authorities upon being satisfied regarding the subject land being in

physical cultivating possession of their said ancestor attested the

mutation u/s 4 of the Act in his favour, under No. 2672.

That, however, the ancestor of the private respondents-Shri

Rajkumar Jai Chand claimed to have prayed for resumption of the

subject matter by invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the

Agrarian Act. That no notice of such resumption application was

served upon the said ancestor of the petitioners-Achroo or even to

4

them (petitioners). That however, the respondent No.4-Tehsildar

Jammu, North Janipur, rejected the said application for resumption

vide Mutation No.2813 dated 24.11.81. The said order of rejection

of resumption dated 24.11.1981 came to be questioned by the

ancestor of the private respondents Sh. Rajkumar Jai chand/ex-

landlord, in an appeal before the respondent no.3-Financial

Commissioner with powers of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner,

Jammu. The appeal was accepted by the respondent No.3 vide his

order dated 07.08.1997 and the case was remanded back to

respondent No.4-Tehsildar for holding a fresh enquiry.

That in the meantime and pursuant to mutation No. 2672

already attested u/s 4 of the Agrarian Act, a mutation u/s 8 of the

Act under No. 2735 also came to be attested in favour of the

aforesaid ancestor of the petitioners i.e Ichru @ Achroo, conferring

upon him the rights of ownership viz-a-vis the subject land.

That the Mutation No. 2735 u/s 8 of the Agrarian Act came to

be questioned in appeal before the learned appellate authority which

accepted the appeal, set aside the mutation No. 2735 u/s 8 of the

Agrarian Act, vide its order dated 24.07.2001 and remanded the

case back to Tehsildar Settlement, Jammu with a direction that

proceedings u/s 8 of the Agrarian Act in respect of the subject land

be conducted after and subject to the conclusion of the proceedings

u/s 7 of the Agrarian Act, already directed by the said authority vide

its remand order dated 7

th

of August, 1997.

5

That the aforesaid order dated 24.07.2001 of the Appellate

Authority also came to be challenged by them (petitioners) before

the respondent No.2-J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu through the

medium of a revision petition. The respondent No.2 i.e the learned

Special Tribunal, Jammu vide its order dated 04.02.2003 declined

to interfere in the order dated 24.07.2001 of the learned Appellate

Authority with the observations that impugned order dated

24.07.2001 is a remand order and not a final one with the further

observation that dispute between the parties u/s 7 of the Act

pertaining to resumption is still pending between them/

That the Tehsildar concerned vide his order dated 22.02.2001,

again dismissed the application of Sh. Raj Kumar Jai chand by

holding him not entitled to the resumption of the subject land on

the ground among others that ex-owner had sold some land.

That subsequently the legal heirs of Sh. Raj Kumar Jai chand

namely Kanta Kumari (daughter) and Balbahader chand (son),

questioned the order dated 22.02.2001, whereby the Tehsildar

Settlement, Jammu maintained the rejection of resumption

application filed by their ancestor late Rajkumar Jai chand through

an appeal bearing file No. 304 before the respondent No.3-

Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (Financial Commissioner).

That they (petitioners) filed a transfer application before the

respondent No.2 seeking transfer of the appeal to some other

competent court as they noticed the inclination of the then learned

Financial Commissioner towards Appellants in the said appeal i.e

6

Kanta Kumari and Balbahadur chand. That para-wise reply was

called by the respondent no.2 from the learned Appellate Court, but

during the pendency of the transfer petition, the respondent No.3

hurried to dispose of the appeal by its order dated 25.05.2004

allegedly in a biased manner.

That the petitioners challenged the order dated 25.05.2004 of

the respondent No.3 in a revision petition before the respondent

No.2 which was dismissed on illegal and unjustified grounds, vide

impugned order dated 23.07.2020.

That they i.e petitioners, have now been left with no remedy but

to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking the issuance of a

writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 25.05.2004 and

23.07.2020, respectively, passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 2, as also

a writ of prohibition for prohibiting the respondents from interfering

with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

subject land.

That they have also sought issuance of any other writs,

directions which this court may deem fit and proper in the facts

and circumstance of the case.

3. The petitioners have assailed the impugned orders on the grounds

inter alia that:-

(i) The respondent No.2 i.e. Ld Special Tribunal, Jammu was

required to await the result of writ petition No. 904/2010

which was subjudice before this court. That subsequent

to the passing of the order dated 25.05.2004, the

respondent No.2 vide its order dated 23.04.2010 passed on

7

their (petitioners) application ordered the summoning of

the resumption form alleged to had been filed by Sh. Raj

Kumar Jai chand-predecessor in-interest of respondents 5

to 8 as well as the connected record of the Tehsildar

concerned. That on 07.06.2010, the respondent No.2

reviewed its earlier order dated 23.04.2010 by which the

record of resumption application was summoned. That the

order dated 07.06.2010 of the respondent No.2 was

questioned by them (petitioners) in writ petition OWP

904/2010 which petition is still pending in this court. That

the fact of the pendency of the writ petition despite being

brought to the notice of the respondent No.2 did not make

any sound.

(ii) That the observations/directions issued by respondent

No.2 in the impugned order dated 23.07.2020 are without

jurisdiction and thus, liable to be quashed. That the

respondent No.2 which has kept open the issue of

resumption to be adjudicated by the respondent No.4 i.e,

Tehsildar Khas, Jammu should not have issued the

command to him to attest a mutation under section 7 of the

Agrarian Act and handover the possession of the subject

land to private respondents. That the grant of simultaneous

liberty to the respondent No.4 to seek the assistance of law

Enforcement Agency in case of any necessity was not

justified.

(iii) That Tehsildar concerned was supposed to have been given

a liberty to conduct adjudication in respect of the fact

whether the ancestor of private respondents had transferred

the land at Srinagar after 1

st

Sept 1971.

(iv) That the resumption application was devoid of any merit as

per the requirements of section-7 of the Agrarian Act. That

the respondent No.4 as per the provisions of the Agrarian

Act and the Rules of 1977 framed there-under was

8

required to conduct an enquiry after affording an

opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

(v) That it has remained their categoric stand during all the

proceedings that the ancestor of the private respondent Sh.

Raj Kumar Jai chand was not entitled to resume on the

ground that he and his family members were income tax

payers and secondly, the ex-owner had transferred the

land after 1

st

day of Sept 1971, thus, disqualified for

resumption of land.

(vi) That the direction issued by the respondent No.2 for

attestation of mutation u/s 7 of the Agrarian Act in favour

of the legal heirs of Sh. Raj Kumar Jai chand, suffers from

material illegalities, irregularities rendering the impugned

order unsustainable under law. That there was no question

of resumption of subject land as the same already stood

escheated to the State under the operation of the BLEAA.

That the ancestor of the private respondent had already

lost its ownership viz-a-viz the subject land.

(vii) That the respondent no.2 during proceedings of the

revision petition before it and after hearing the learned

counsel for the parties passed the order dated 23.04.2010

for summoning of the record which was material for

arriving at a just decision but later on the tribunal

reviewed its order.

(viii) That there is no provision guaranteeing the reviewing of

the own order by the Authorities under the Act. That the

alleged resumption form was a material document required

to be examined by the respondent No.2 in terms of the date

of presentation of the same and the details made therein.

That said remand form was required to be as per Form

No.5 prescribed under the Agrarian Reforms Rules, 1977.

(ix) That the respondent No.2 committed an illegality in

reviewing its earlier order dated 23.4.2010 vide subsequent

9

order dated 07.06.2010 thereby declining the summoning

of the original record particularly the alleged resumption

form supposed to be containing details of the land as well

as the date of submission of the same, thereby rendering

the order impugned to be unsustainable in the eyes of law.

(x) That no record was before the respondent no.2 where from

it, could have arrived at a conclusion regarding the date of

submission of the resumption form, as well as the contents

of the same. That there was also no record before the

respondent no.2 on the basis of which, the Tribunal could

have satisfied itself that the ancestor of the private

respondent made selection of the land at Top Sherkhania,

Jammu and which Khasra numbers were sought to be

resumed.

(xi) That the impugned orders suffer from material illegalities

and irregularities which are apparent on the face of record

and are thus liable to be quashed.

(xii) That the respondents 2 & 3 were not justified in issuing

direction to the respondent No.4 for attestation of a

Mutation u/s 7, when no adjudication on the alleged

application U/s 7 had been held and further no opportunity

was offered to the ancestor of the petitioners i.e. Ichru or to

the petitioners after his death to contest the said resumption

application.

(xiii) That the respondent No.2 i.e Special Tribunal Jammu did

not return any finding on the issues raised in the revision

petition as well as agitated through the written arguments.

(xiv) That the learned Special Tribunal (respondent No.2) did

not appreciate the facto legal issue raised in the revision

petition to the effect that the appeal before the respondent

No.3 i.e. Financial Commissioner with powers of Agrarian

Reforms Commissioner, Jammu was hopelessly time

barred and the authority concerned hurried to decide the

10

appeal on merits without first addressing the application,

for condonation of delay.

(xv) That in terms of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 3 A CPC,

the Appellate Court acquires jurisdiction to decide the

appeal only subject to the outcome of the condonation of

delay application, therefore, the impugned order dated

25.05.2004 passed by respondent No.3 was without

jurisdiction which fact was under estimated by the

respondent No.2. That the respondent No.2 did not

consider such important question of law and hurried to

dismiss the revision petition filed by the predecessor in-

interest of the petitioners against the mandatory provisions

contained in Order 41 Rule 3A CPC.

(xvi) That the revision petition, giving rise to the impugned

order dated 23.07.2020, was pending before the Ld

Judicial Member of the Tribunal i.e. Bench No.2 and the

Respondent No.2 through its Chairman withdrew the case

from the Bench No.2 and assigned the same to its own

Bench without notice to the petitioners particularly when

the Judicial Member was functioning.

(xvii) That on 9

th

of July 2020 when the case was taken up by

the respondent No.2 for hearing, the junior counsel of the

petitioners appeared and requested to supply him a copy of

transfer application for filing the objections which was not

done and instead the case was kept open for orders with

the direction to the junior counsel of the petitioners to

submit his written arguments on or before 20.07.2020.

(xviii) That the written arguments as directed were submitted

and the respondent No.2 while sitting at Srinagar decided

the case dismissing the revision petition through

impugned order dated 2307.2020 without affording an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioners to argue the

case orally.

11

(xix) That the respondent No.2 did not consider the written

submissions/arguments submitted by their counsel which

were supported by the documentary proof as well as the

judgments of this Court in respect of the, issues involved,

which constitutes a circumstance warranting quashment

of the impugned order dated 23.07.2020.

(xx) That the respondent No.2 mainly based its judgment on the

order dated 04.03.2003 passed by it while hearing the

earlier revision petition that was filed by their predecessor

in-interest against the order of respondent No.3 by virtue of

which the said respondent No.3 set aside the Mutation No.

2735 attested in favour of their predecessor in-interest u/s

8 of the Agrarian Act.

(xxi) That the respondent No.2 upheld the order of the

Appellate Court i.e. Respondent No.3 based on the ground

that no mutation u/s 8 can be attested unless the

proceedings u/s 7 for resumption of the subject land, were

concluded.

(xxii) That there was no dispute u/s 7 of the Agrarian Act

before the learned Special Tribunal (respondent No.2)

which on one hand directed that Mutation u/s 8 of Agrarian

Act in favour of the predecessor in-interest of the

petitioners was premature and o n the other hand in the

same order held that predecessor in-interest of respondents

was entitled to resume the subject land.

(xxiii) That the respondent No.2 did not consider the fact that

his predecessor in office/court while recording the order

dated 04.02.2003 was dealing with the dispute pertaining

to mutation u/s 8 of the Agrarian Act being Mutation No.

2735 dated 01.01.1982 and not the dispute u/s 7 of the

Agrarian Act.

(xxiv) That the observation of the respondent No.2 i.e. Special

Tribunal Jammu regarding the operation of the resjudicata

12

is illegal as the controversy involved in the litigation i.e.

revision petition giving rise to the order impugned dated

23.07.2020 was in terms of Section 7 of the Agrarian Act.

(xxv) That, except for the present writ petition, no other writ

petition has been filed challenging the impugned order

dated 23.07.2020. That OWP No. 904/2010 had challenged

the order dated 07.06.2010, which was passed during the

pendency of the revision petition.

4. The contesting private respondents 5 to 8 through their

reply/objections have resisted the instant petition on the ground

inter alia, that :-

(i) The writ petition is not maintainable because no question

of law or public interest was pleaded either in the revision

petition or in the arguments by the petitioners, the

existence/agitation whereof was the sine quo none for

filing the revision petition, in terms of provisions of

Section 21 (2) of the Agrarian Act.

(ii) That the petitioners cannot go beyond their pleadings in the

writ petition filed before this court by invoking its extra

ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

(iii) That the contention of the predecessor in-interest of the

petitioners namely Ichru @ Achroo agitated by him

during his life time and thereafter by the present

petitioners before the concerned authorities to the effect

that Raj Kumar Jai chand,-- the ex-land owner and the

predecessor in-interest of the private respondents had not

mentioned the subject Khasra numbers of which he

sought resumption, in his Unit of 182 Kanals under

BLEAA, is not justified because the aforesaid Raj Kumar

Jai chand had filed the necessary application before the

13

authorities and the subject Khasra numbers were included

in his unit of 182 kanals of land.

(vi) That the ex-owner Raj Kumar Jaichand had indicated the

old Khasra numbers instead of new Khasra numbers which

were allotted to the land in question during the settlement

proceedings in the years 1979-80 B.K. That Raj Kumar Jai

chand had no other land in village Toph-Sherkhania Tehsil

Jammu except the subject land.

(iv) That the ancestor of petitioners—Achroo had categorically

admitted the relationship of land lord and tenant between

him and the Raj Kumar Jai chand by filing an application

before the Tehsildar Jammu requesting therein for

effecting the correction in entries in register of khasra

Girdawari for the years 1967-1977 in the quantum of rent

of the subject land comprised under khasra numbers

81,82,83 and 84.

(v) That the petitioners have now taken a belated stand

during the second round of litigation to the effect that

subject land was not included in the unit of 182 kanals

selected by the Raj Kumar Jai chand and as such they

(private respondents) are not the owners of the land in

question.

(vi) That at the time of attestation of mutation u/s 4 of Agrarian

Act, the petitioner’s ancestor admitted the private

respondent’s—ancestor as his land lord.

(vii) That section 32 of the Agrarian Act provides that the said

Act has an overriding effect on all other previous laws,

therefore, no plea can be taken under BLEAA during the

proceedings under Agrarian Act. That the relationship of

land lord and tenant is to be determined by entry of khasra

Girdawari of Kharief 1971. That admittedly Raj Kumar

Jaichand was recorded as land lord of the subject land in

the year 1971, therefore, no other plea is admissible. That

14

otherwise also Achroo –ancestor of petitioners and the

original tenant has admitted the relationship of land lord

and tenant between the parties to the writ petition.

(viii) That the proceedings under the BLEAA pending, if any,

have to abate as no fresh proceedings under any other Act

in contravention of the Agrarian Act can be initiated.

(ix) That as per the provisions of Section 42 of the Agrarian

Act, the provisions of BLEAA so far as they are

inconsistent with the provisions of Agrarian Act cease to

apply and pending inconsistent proceedings before courts

or revenue officers shall abate.

(x) That the contention of the petitioners that appeal before the

Respondent No.3 was filed beyond the period of limitation

and the learned appellate authority decided the appeal

without condoning the delay is not justified, because the

appeal was filed within the period of limitation from the

date of knowledge of the impugned order.

(xi) That they i.e. private respondents obtained the knowledge

of the impugned order on 09.10.2001 and the appeal was

filed on 16.10.2001 when two to three days were spent in

obtaining the certified copies.

(xii) That no question of law or public importance is involved in

the case. That jurisdiction under article 226 of the

constitution of India may not be exercised by this court to

alter the finding of facts arrived at by the J&K Special

Tribunal, Agrarian Reforms Commissioner (Financial

Commissioner J&K and the Tehsildar) Jammu.

(xiii) That all the rules including the rule 21 of J&K Agrarian

Reforms Rules 1977 have been complied with by the

authorities concerned.

(xiv) That Raj Kumar Jai Chand was not an income tax payer.

(xv) That no land has been transferred by Raj Kumar Jai chand

after the year 1971.

15

(xvi) That respondents 2 & 3 have passed the justified orders

and did not violate the principles of natural justice.

(xvii) That petitioners and their ancestor were afforded

sufficient opportunity of hearing and to contest the

application u/s 7 of the Agrarian Act.

5. It is needful to mention that having regard to the fact of real contest

between the petitioners and the private respondents 5 to 8, the

respondents 2 and 3, being quasi-judicial authorities, the submission

of the Ld. State Counsel made before the Court at the hearing of the

case on 20.08.2024 that no counter affidavit to the petition is needed

to be filed on behalf of the said official respondents was agreed

with.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in respect of the

matter and considered their rival contentions.

7. Perused the record of the instant petition, especially memo of writ

petition, reply filed by the contesting private respondents and the

copies of the orders passed from time to time by the revenue

authorities as well as the learned Special Tribunal at Jammu

especially the orders dated 4.7.2003, 25.05.2004 and 23.07.2020.

8. The case has really a chequered history. This multi rounded

litigation dates back from the enactment of J&K, BLEAA 2007 (Svt

1950 AD) and has engaged many generations. Some laxity in

addressing the issues involved in the case post enactment and

enforcement of J&K BLEAA 1950 AD and J&K Agrarian Reforms

Act 1976, in time and strictly as per the law with the involvement

of both sides may be a cause of burning issue.

16

9. It has remained the stand of the ancestor of the petitioners-Ichru @

Achroo during his life time that the subject land comprised under

Khasra Nos. 81,82,83 and 84 situated at the then Revenue Estate

Top Sherkhinia Tehsil Jammu was under his cultivation as a tenant

prior to 1950 AD.

That his landlords, Shri Rajkumar Jai Chand and his brother,

Shri Rajkumar Teerath Chand, were the sons of the then ―Raja‖ of

Chenani, (now part of District Udhampur) and were owing more

than 3266 kanals of land situated at different locations. That upon

coming into the operation of the BLEAA, they selected their

respective Units of land to the extent of 182 kanals each permissible

to be retained by them under the BLEAA, with the attestation of

two separate Mutations in their favour.

That the subject land was not selected by them in their Units

which continued to remain under his tenancy, thus entitled him to

be conferred the ownership in respect of the same in view of the

Section 5 of the BLEAA. That he ran from pillar to post for getting

ownership vis-a-vis subject land in terms of the provisions of

Section 5 of BLEAA, but could not get justice. That meanwhile the

Agrarian Act came to be legislated and enforced with effect from

13-7-1978. That being in the continued and uninterrupted tenancy

of the subject land right from 1950 AD, (2007 Svt), as well as on

Kharif 1971, he got qualified to be conferred with the ownership

17

rights vis-a-vis the same in terms of the provisions of sections 4 and

8 of the Agrarian Act.

That after approaching the authorities under the Agrarian Act,

Mutation under Section 4 in respect of the subject land came to be

attested in his favour. That being an illiterate and helpless person,

he was not conferred with the full ownership rights with the

attestation of mutation under Section 8 of the Agrarian Act, as in the

meanwhile the ancestor of the private respondents, Shri Rajkumar

Jai Chand, purportedly filed the resumption application which was

rejected by the then Tehsildar vide his order dated 24-11-1981. The

ancestor of private respondents preferred an appeal before

respondent No. 3, i.e., Appellate authority, which vide order dated

9-8-1987, remanded the matter back to respondent No. 4, i.e.,

Tehsildar concerned, for appropriate verification and passing of

orders. It is his further stand that thereafter in continuation to the

attestation of the mutation under Section 4 of the Agrarian Act in

his favour, the mutation under Section 8 of the Act also came to be

attested in his favour, which was however assailed before the

Appellate Authority, i.e., respondent No. 3, which vide order dated

24-7-2001 again remanded the matter to respondent No. 4 with the

direction that the attestation of mutation under Section 8 be

considered after and subject to the conclusion of resumption

proceedings already remanded back.

That he, preferred a revision before respondent No. 2, i.e., the

learned Special Tribunal at Jammu, assailing the second remand

18

order of 24-7-2001 of the Appellate Authority. That however the

learned Special Tribunal vide order dated 4.2.2003 dismissed the

revision while agreeing with the order dated 24-7-2001 of the

Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3). It has remained the further

stand of the petitioners that thereafter the legal heirs of Shri.

Rajkumar Jai Chand assailed the order dated 22-2-2001 of the

Tehsildar concerned, maintaining the rejection of the resumption

application before the Appellate Authority, i.e., respondent No. 3,

which despite the pendency of the transfer application before

respondent No. 2, disposed of the appeal in a biased manner vide

order dated 25-05-2004, impugned in the petition before this court.

That subsequently the challenge to the earlier impugned order

of respondent No. 3 dated 25-05-2004 before respondent No. 2, i.e.,

Special Tribunal at Jammu, also failed through the second

impugned order dated 23-7-2020.

10. The petitioners have thrown challenge to the impugned order dated

23-7-2020 of the respondent No. 2 mainly on the ground that the

result of the writ petition No. 904-2010 pending before this court

was not awaited; that the adjudication of the issue of the

resumption, despite being kept open by all the authorities, there was

no justification for directing the attestation of mutation under

Section 7 of the Agrarian Act in favour of the private respondents

with the direction for handing over the possession of the subject

land to them, being illegal and unwarranted; that the respondent No.

4, i.e. Tehsildar concerned, twice rejected the resumption

19

application/form of the ancestor of private respondents as being hit

by the essential requirements laid down under Section 7 of the

Agrarian Act, and the issue, despite being directed to be relooked as

per the remand orders, was not awaited, and the final impugned

order dated 23-7-2020 came to be passed by the learned Special

Tribunal by directing the attestation of the mutation and the handing

over of the possession of the subject land to the private respondents,

even with availing help of law enforcement agencies.

11. As hereinbefore mentioned, the contesting private respondents

resisted the instant writ petition on the main grounds inter alia, that

no substantial question of law or public importance being the sine

qua non for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Jammu

Special Tribunal as envisaged under the then position of law, under

Section 21 (2) of Agrarian Act was involved in the matter; that the

ancestor of the private respondent, Shri Rajkumar Jai Chand, had

mentioned the old Khasra numbers of the estate at Top Sherkhania

and had not left the subject land as alleged; that the ancestor of

petitioners has all along admitted his position as a tenant of the

subject land; that in terms of provisions of Section 32 of the

Agrarian Act, the legislation has an overriding effect on all other

laws and, therefore, no plea could have been undertaken under

BLEAA during the proceedings under Agrarian Act; that Rajkumar

Jai Chand was not an income taxpayer and no land has been

transferred by him after the year 1971.

20

12. What of essence emerges from the alleged factual aspects of the

case is that the issue of resumption already decided by the Tehsildar

concerned by rejecting the claim for the same was not revisited and

given a relook upon the remand orders dated 07-08-1997 and 24-07-

2001 of the learned Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No. 3.

The respondent No. 3, i.e. the Appellate Authority, vide

impugned order dated 25-05-2004, makes an observation to the

effect of resolution of disputed questions by the learned Special

Tribunal at page 5 of the judgment. The said Para is reproduced for

ready reference:-

―Keeping in view the order of the Special Tribunal

reproduced above, the first question is solved by the Spl.

Tribunal that R.K Jai chand was not an income tax payee.

Second question is also solved by the same order of Spl.

Tribunal that Balbhader Chand had a separate family and

his income cannot be taken into account in the instant case.

Regarding third question, the right of resuming the land

granted by the statue accrued to R.K Jai Chand on the date

of filing the resumption application.‖

However, a perusal of order dated 4-2-003 of the learned

Special Tribunal (respondent No. 2), inter alia, reads that, “further,

it is mandatory that the mutation under Section 8 should be attested

after decision of the resumption application under Section 7, but it

is on record that while resumption application was pending,

mutation under Section 8 was attested in this case”.

21

13. The petitioners have also pleaded in the instant writ petition that

respondent No. 3 allowed the appeal through impugned order dated

25-5-2004 without deciding the question of limitation, as the appeal

was grossly time-barred.

14. The contention of the contesting private respondents that their

ancestor Rajkumar Jai Chand selected the subject land also in his

unit of 182 kanals by mentioning the old khasra numbers, does not

sound well, because had the same been done, the subject land would

have been covered under the mutation already affected in terms of

the provision of section 4 of the BLEAA.

Section 7 of the Agrarian Act, which lays down the law

regarding ―the Resumption for bonafide personal cultivation‖ by ex-

landlord, prescribes various prerequisite qualifications and the issue

of resumption does not seem to have been properly addressed by the

authorities. Vide orders dated 7-8-1997 and 24-7-2001, the

appellate authority remanded the matter for fresh enquiry in respect

of entitlement of resumption. The order dated 22-2-2001 passed by

the Tehsildar concerned is alleged by private contesting respondents

as predated. The impugned orders have conspicuously deliberated

upon the orders dated 24.11.1981 and 22-2-2001 purported to have

been passed by the Tehsildar concerned while rejecting the

resumption application/form. The copies of the said orders are not

also placed on the record file. It is reiterated that the issue of

resumption needs to be properly adjudicated upon, in the light of

22

law regulating the said issue. The court has gone through the case

law relied upon by both the sides.

The impugned orders seem to be suffering from arbitrariness.

Principles of natural justice do not seem to have been observed in

spirit by the authorities while dealing with the rival

claims/contentions.

The matter needs to be revisited on the facto legal basis while

keeping in mind the basic objects of Agrarian Act providing for

transfer of land to tillers and right for Resumption under some

justified circumstances.

The Agrarian Act was passed to transfer land ownership to

actual cultivators, abolish absentee landlordism, set strict ceilings

on land holdings, and ensure better, more productive utilization of

agricultural land in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Under the scheme of Agrarian Act, Resumption is not an

absolute right; it is bound by severe conditions to ensure that

provision is not exploited to evict tillers unfairly.

15. For the foregoing discussion, the court in exercise of its

extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in it under the provisions of

Article 226 of the Constitution of India is of the opinion that it may

meet the ends of justice in case the impugned orders dated 25-5-

2004 and 23-7-2020 respectively passed by respondent No. 3 and 2

are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.

3, i.e. the Appellate Authority, (Financial Commissioner with

powers of Agrarian Commissioner at Jammu), for fresh adjudication

23

of the appeal bearing file number 304 instituted on 16-10-2001

titled ―Kanta Kumari and another versus Ram Lal and others”, in

accordance with the law and the observations made by this court

after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties in detail. The

learned appellate authority shall bring on record the legal heirs of

the deceased parties, if any, on both the sides upon due verification.

It is also felt to meet the ends of justice in case pending fresh

adjudication of the appeal by respondent No. 3 as hereinbefore

opined; status quo is directed to be maintained with respect to the

subject land.

16. It is accordingly ordered.

17. The parties shall appear before the Court of respondent No. 3 at

Jammu on 10

th

of September, 2026.

18. The scanned record from the learned authorities below shall be sent

back along with copies of this order.

19. Disposed of.

(Mohd Yousuf Wani)

Judge

Srinagar:

14.08.2026.

“Ayaz‖

Jt. Registrar/Secretary

i) Whether approved for reporting. Yes/No

ii) Whether the judgment/order is speaking. Yes/No