Akbar Khan and Others vs State and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—The dispute in this writ petition relates to land measuring 4 kanals and 9 marlas falling under Survey No. 637,

situated at Perisabad Pora, Tehsil Budgam. It appears that mutation Nos. 432, 581, 587 came to be attested by the revenue officers/authorities

under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, for short "" the Act"" in favour of respondent No. 3.

Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Agrarian Commissioner against mutation No. 432 dated 2.5.1984. The appellate

Court allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation No. 432.

Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 1 preferred a revision petition before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Srinagar, which came to be

allowed vide impugned order. It appears that respondent No. 1 is having sale papers in terms of orders of Aga Sahib-sale according to sharyat

and a sale deed duly registered by Sub Registrar Budgam.

It also appears that civil suit was pending regarding the property in question before Munsiff Budgam and came to be decreed in terms of

compromise decree vide judgement and decree dated 21.1.1978.

In terms of the decree of the civil court a mutation No. 800 came to be passed. Petitioners had challenged the said mutation No. 800 but

without any success. The decree as well as mutation No. 800 has attained finality, thus revision petitioners can not challenge the mutation No. 432.

It is also worthwhile to mention here that mutation Nos. 432, 851 and 857 came to be passed in terms of Rule 4 of Rules and Section 4 and 8 of

the Act in respect of the land which is already covered by the civil Court decree and mutation.

Thus the Tribunal has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order. It appears that writ petitioners have based his grievances on

the basis of agreement of sale and Tribunal has rightly given liberty to them to seek appropriate remedy from civil court, if advised.

Keeping in view the facts discussed hereinabove, I am of the considered view that Special Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction rightly and has not

committed any illegality, therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.