1. Dispute in this writ petition relates to land measuring six kanals under survey No. 834/696/146 of village Shuhama, Ganderbal, over which the petitioners claims to be in continuous possession from kharief 1966. 2. It transpires that mutation attested by Tehsildar Ganderbal in favour of private respondents, was questioned by the petitioners by filing an application before the Tehsildar, which was rejected by the Tehsildar concerned on the ground that petitioners have relinquished their rights over the said land in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved by this order, petitioners approached the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Srinagar, who, after visiting the spot, found that petitioners were in continuous possession of the property as reported by the locals of the area and returned a finding that Tehsildar has committed an error in attesting the mutation without visiting the spot. He consistently rejected the plea of the petitioner for rectifying the wrong. The mutation was set aside and Tehsildar Ganderbal was directed to proceed under the relevant sections of the Agrarian Reforms Act, keeping in view the cultivating possession on spot from Kharief 1971. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, private respondents filed a revision petition before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal. The Tribunal, while applying the principle of res judicata, in view of the fact that the earlier application filed by the petitioners was disallowed, they could not have filed a fresh application, set aside the order of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner. It is under these circumstances that present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 4. The main contention of the petitioners in this petition is that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the Tribunal only on a question of law or public interest. They contend that there was no question of law or public interest involved in the revision petition filed by the respondents as it was only an order of remand passed by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Special Tribunal exercises the power of revision under Section 21(2) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, which clearly mandates that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only in public interest or if it finds that a question of law is involved in the case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Special Tribunal exercises the power of revision under Section 21(2) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, which clearly mandates that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only in public interest or if it finds that a question of law is involved in the case. The Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, while hearing the appeal, has not determined any of the rights of the parties but has only directed the Tehsildar to take a fresh look in the matter and find out as to who actually was in possession of the land in question in Kharief 1971. The order of the Tehsildar was rejected on the ground that no spot inspection was conducted by him before attesting the mutation. The Tribunal has returned a finding on the issue which was not in issue before it. 7. While going through the judgment of the Special Tribunal, it be seen that learned counsel for the petitioners has taken up a plea that late Wahab Shiekh was an absentee landlord residing in Srinagar and petitioners have all along been in cultivating possession of the land in question. While examining this contention, the Tribunal found that an application under Section 4(a) under the Agrarian Reforms Act, which was filed by the petitioners, was withdrawn by them and consequently petitioners filed one more application which was rejected by the Tehsildar by holding that petitioners could not have filed successive applications as it was barred by principle of res judicata. 8. Principle of res judicata can apply only where an issue has been decided by a Court. Such a plea did not arise in the present case. 9. Be that as it may, the Tribunal has traveled beyond its jurisdiction in deciding the revision petition as the issues raised before it were never raised before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner. Moreover, against an order of remand, which does not determine any rights of the parties, no revision could have been filed against the order. I am fortified in taking this view by a judgment of this Court delivered in case titled as Permanand v. J&K Special Tribunal, reported as 1999 S.L.J, 245. 10. For all what has been said above, this writ petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. I am fortified in taking this view by a judgment of this Court delivered in case titled as Permanand v. J&K Special Tribunal, reported as 1999 S.L.J, 245. 10. For all what has been said above, this writ petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. Let the matter be decided by the Tehsildar in terms of order dated 16.08.2001 passed by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner.