Per Yaqoob, J.;— 1. After rounds of litigative process before various authorities, more particularly, authorities under the Agrarian Reforms Act, writ jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by (predecessor-in-interest) of the writ petitioners, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 09.11.2011. Hence, the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The position of the writ petitioners-appellants being trespassers of the land in dispute stands settled way back in the year 1958 in a suit captioned Abdul Aziz v. Mohammda and others filed on 27.08.1956 in the Court of Sub Judge, Rajouri and decided on 07.06.1958. 3. In the said suit, father of appellants Nos. 1 to 5-Abdul Gani was defendant No.4, whereas Ghulam Rasool, father of respondents 6 to 8, was defendant No.3. Plaintiff Abdul Aziz s/o Kala Kumhar r/o Rajouri and defendant No.7-Gani s/o Gwasha Kumhar r/o Rajouri were pleaded to be jointly owners of the land measuring 29 Kanals and 16 Marias covered by Survey No.61 situated at Rampur, Rajouri. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession. As many as five issues were framed. While recording findings on each issue, it was finally concluded that plaintiff and defendant No.7 are owners, whereas defendants 1 to 5 which include father of respondents 1 to 5, and father of respondents Nos 6 to 3, as trespassers. The suit for possession was decreed in favour of the plaintiff as against defendants Nos. 1 to 5. The said judgment and decree has not been challenged, so has attained finality. 4. After settlement of the revenue records, there was a change in the survey number qua the land in question, which position is reflected in the Miseli Haqiat, copy of which is placed on the record of appeal by the appellants-writ petitioners, wherein position of previous and present survey Nos. viz-a-viz land including the land in dispute is clearly indicated as under:- Previous Number New Number Measuring 60min 335/11 kanal 15 marlas 61 min 346 1 Kanal 3 marlas 61 min 335 10 kanals 17 marlas 61 min 340 7 kanals 18 marlas 5. The Mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, bearing No.758 and 812 respectively, were attested in favour of appellants-writ petitioners. The Mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, bearing No.758 and 812 respectively, were attested in favour of appellants-writ petitioners. But both the Mutations have been set aside by the appellate authority (Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri) un ier the Agrarian Reforms Act and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar Rajouri for fresh enquiry. The Tehsildar recorded the appellants-writ petitioners as trespassers vide Mutation No. 1875 but again appellate authority accepted the appeal and remanded the matter again for further enquiry to the Assistant Commissioner, Rajouri vide its order dated 07.10.2002. The Assistant Commissioner, Rajouri again attested the Mutation No. 2752 and 2753 in favour of the appellants-writ petitioners under Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, but his order was also set aside by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri on 07.01.2006. Revision filed against the said order dated 07.01.2006 stands rejected by the Special Tribunal vide its order dated 07.05.2009. 6. The writ petitioners-appellants dis-satisfied with the decision filed writ petition. 7. Learned writ Court while noticing all the features of the case and legality of the orders passed from time to time by the authorities under the Agrarian Reforms Act as well as the authorities under Evacuees Property Act has concluded that the appellants-writ petitioners have been held to be trespassers of the land in question by the civil Court much before Agrarian Reforms Act came into force, they could not claim ownership under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act on the basis of being unauthorised occupants. The order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri and the conclusion reached at by the J&K Special Tribunal, do not call for any interference. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners firstly tried to project tha I the land, which was decreed in the civil suit in the year 1958, is covered under Survey No. 61, whereas Mutation has been attested vis-a-vis land covered under survey number 335/1 measuring 1 kanal 15 marlas and under survey number 335 measuring 10 kanals 17 marlas but after settlement, survey number has been changed, which position is supported by the copy of Miseli Haqiat placed or record by the appellants-writ petitioners, position of which stand quoted hereinabove, therefore, this argument is fallacious. 9. 9. In terms of Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, a person who was 'tiller' on the crucial date of Kharief 1971 has to be conferred with prospective ownership rights by extinguishing rights of the actual owner and, thereafter, on determination of question of resumption as permissible under Section 7, and, then question of deposit of levy as is required under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, the Mutation under Section 8 has to be attested so as to confer ownership rights to the 'tiller'. 10. The important question, which arises for consideration is as to whether the appellants-writ petitioners would fall within the ambit of 'tiller' as defined in the Agrarian Reforms Act. The 'tiller' is defined under sub section 17 of Section 2 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, which reads as under:- "Tiller" means tenant cultivating land personally and shall mean and include a person who was tiller in Kharif, 1971 or his legal heirs or his transferee in the case of any valid transfer of land made between 1st September, 1971 and 1st May, 1973, subject to the competent Revenue Officer being satisfied about the existence of a bona fide transfer to this effect." 11. It is clear that when land is under tenancy and relationship of the landlord and the tenant exists, only then tenant has to be declared prospective owner under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, then has to be conferred ownership rights under Section 8 after settling the issue under Section 7 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. 12. What does word 'tenant' means, the same is not defined in Section 2 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, but sub section 18 of Section 2 provides that the words and expressions not defined in this Act shall have the meaning as assigned to them in the J&K Majority Act, J&K Tenancy Act, J&K Land Revenue Act and J&K Displacement Persons (Permanent Settlement) Act, 1971. 13. 13. The expression 'tenant' as defined in sub section 5 of Section 2 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980 reads as under:- " tenant" means a person who holds land, under the State, or under another person, and is, or but for a special contract in that behalf would be, liable to pay rent for that land, to the State or to that person; but it does not include- (a) an inferior landholder, or (b) a person to whom a holding has been transferred, or an estate or holding has been let on farm, for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue, or of a sum recoverable as such, or (c) a mortgagee of the rights of a landholder," 14. The appellants-writ petitioners do not fall within the definition of 'tenant' as they are trespassers and declared so by the judgment and decree passed in the year 1958. 15. In the aforesaid background, judgment impugned dated 09.11.2011 does not call for any interference. The appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed as such along with connected CMA No. 211/2011.