1. A short but important question of law has been raised through this revision petition filed in terms of Section 21(2) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (hereinafter `the Act' ). The petitioner is ex-landlord of the land bearing khasra nos.58 (17 kanal 8 marlas) & 58 min (2 kanals only) situate in village Top Sherkhania, total measuring 19 kanals & 8 marlas. He filed application for resumption of this land & filled in requisite Form under Section 7 of the Act. He has been, however, denied the right to resume his land, though he has passed through a series of legal battles therefor. The main hurdle that impeded the law to make a windfall on him is the foolproof documentary evidence on the record that he sold one kanal and twelve marlas of irrigated land (nehri) out of khasra number 37 in his personal cultivation to one Sh. Surinder Kumar Jalali S/o Payare Lal Jalali vide sale deed dated 20.9.1980 for which a mutation no.3243 came to be attested on 04.11.1982 and one kanal of waryal awal (Culturable) kind of land to Pt.Radha Krishan out of khasra no.923 min vide a sale deed dated 06.3.1972 for which a mutation no.1591 dated 17.4.1973 has been attested. Mutations above referred have been attested for these transactions of sale of cultivable type of land. The petitioner is further proved to have sold this culturable land after the crucial date of kharif 1971, which disentitles him for resumption of his ownership land which may be otherwise permissible under Section 7 of the Act. After a checkered background of unending litigation that ensued, Tehsildar Jammu by his order dated 29.12.2001 rejected the resumption application of the petitioner on the ground of alienation of `Culturable land', as abovesaid & this order of Tehsildar Jammu has been upheld by the Joint Agrarian Commissioner, with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu by his order dated 30.9.2005, which has been assailed herein. The order passed by Joint Agrarian Commissioner, with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu is elaborate & comprehensive, legally as well as factually. The order passed by Joint Agrarian Commissioner, with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu is elaborate & comprehensive, legally as well as factually. 2 The question of law that falls for determination in this revision petition filed under Section 21(2) of the Act, can be delineated as under: Whether an ex-landlord is rendered disentitled for resumption of his land under Section 7 of the Act if he is proved to have sold any piece agricultural `land' out of his ownership after kharif 1971 ? Advocates for the parties have addressed arguments at length. But this Tribunal is not concerned with the factual matrix of the case. Section 21(2) of the Act empowers this Tribunal to call for & examine record of the Commissioner where he has passed a final order & if it is shown that a question of law or of public importance is raised and in that case the Tribunal may pass an appropriate order after hearing the aggrieved. The section is guardedly worded & leaves little scope for interpretation that the Tribunal can invoke its jurisdiction only in matters raising important question of law and/or where the matter involves issue of public importance. The power is therefore restricted only to question of law & matter involving important public issues. There is thus express bar for this Tribunal to interfere in matters involving question of fact. The area of factual know-how, therefore, is away from the domain of this Tribunal. Since Tehsildar Jammu & the Joint Commissioner as well have discussed the facts of this case threadbare in their respective orders, I need not to repeat the same over again here. 3. The important question of law that falls for determination by this Special Tribunal is as to whether the petitioner (ex-landlord qua the land in dispute) can be rendered ineligible for resumption of his cultivable land if he has sold any portion thereof in the manner prescribed under law. Section 7 deals with `Resumption for bona fide personal cultivation by ex-landlord', but such resumption are subject to the provisions of this section only. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act creates restrictions in the resumption of land by an ex-landlord & prescribes that the resumption of land which may be permissible to an individual shall be subject to the conditions incorporated in this Sub-section itself. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act creates restrictions in the resumption of land by an ex-landlord & prescribes that the resumption of land which may be permissible to an individual shall be subject to the conditions incorporated in this Sub-section itself. Among others, clause (e) is important for the purposes of our discussion. This clause prescribes that "the person who has transferred land by sale or gift or bequest on or after first day of September,1971 shall not be eligible to resume land if the land so transferred was personally cultivated by him prior to such transfer'. So in order to disentitle an ex-landlord from resumption of land he must be proved to have (i) transferred some land;(ii) such transfer should be made by him by way of sale, gift or bequest (will); such transfer of land must be shown to have been made by him on or after first day of September 1971 & (i) that such land must have been in his personal cultivation prior to such transfer. It is therefore, amply clear that the restrictions will not apply if the land sold was not `in his personal cultivation', it had been sold prior to first day of September 1971 & the same was transferred by any mode of alienation other than sale, gift or bequest. This restriction will also not apply on land which was owned by him but it was not under his personal cultivation. With this unambiguous legal position of the matter, the land sold by the petitioner Sandoor Singh comprises in Khasra no.923 (1kanal/waryal awwal) & Khasra no.37 min (1kanal-12 marls/nehri) to Pt.Radha Krishan & Surinder Kumar Jalali respectively. The record of Khasra girdawri shows that Sandoor had been in possession of this land & cultivated the same personally. There is no rebuttal to this documentary evidence of record which has presumption of truthfulness. The findings returned by Tehsildar Jammu dated 29.12.2001 and confirmed by the Joint Agrarian Commissioner Jammu dated 30.9.2005 are unexceptional & this Tribunal does not find any legal lacuna to interfere with same. 4. The revision petition therefore fails & is hereby dismissed. Record called for from the lower courts/authorities be immediately returned along with a copy of this order. This Tribunal file shall be consigned to record after due compilation.