JUDGMENT Tashi Rabstan, J.- 1. By the medium of this appeal, writ petitioner-appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.12.1999 passed in OWP No. 253/1997, titled as Chaman Lal v. Ram Lal and others (for short, impugned judgment), whereby and whereunder the learned Single judge has dismissed the writ petition being without any merit upholding the judgment and order dated 14.03.1997 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (for short, Tribunal). Learned Tribunal while allowing the Revision Petition filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein held that the property of deceased Sheetal Dass, i.e., land measuring 69 kanals and 2 marlas comprised under Khasra Nos. 2,35,48,55 and 56, situated in village Saloone, Tehsil and District Reasi, would devolve upon said respondents by operation of provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act as also in terms of the last Will executed by late Sheetal Dass. It is relevant to notice the resume of the facts as emerge from the impugned judgment and the pleadings of the parties. 2. Sheetal Dass was the real maternal uncle (Mama) of Sh. Sansar Chand, and respondents 1 to 3 herein are the sons of Sansar Chand. The writ petitioner-appellant herein claims to be an adopted son of late Shri Sheetal Dass vide Adoption Deed executed on 20.01.1976 and registered by Sub Registrar, Reasi on 30.01.1976. The writ petitioner appellant further claims that his adoptive father was an occupancy tenant and in cultivating possession of land measuring 69 kanals and 2 marlas situated at village Saloone, Tehsil Reasi (Now District Reasi) in Kharif, 1971. 3. It is contended that the Adoption Deed dated 20.01.1976 was cancelled by his adoptive father by way of Deed of Cancellation of Adoption, executed and registered on 26.09.1980 before the Sub Registrar, Reasi. The writ petitioner-appellant contended that the said Deed of Cancellation of Adoption was in violation of the provisions of Section 15 of the J&K Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 it is further contended that after the execution of Deed of Cancellation of Adoption, the adoptive father of the writ petitioner-appellant executed a will in favour of respondents 1 to 3 on 24.10.1980. It is further submitted by the writ petitioner-appellant that on 24.02.1986, Mutation No. 437 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of the aforesaid land came to be attested in favour of respondents 1 to 3 showing them as prospective owners. It is further contended that on the same day, another Mutation No. 438 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972 also came to be attested by virtue of which respondents 1 to 3 were conferred with ownership rights qua the aforesaid land. 4. The writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved of the aforesaid Mutations, i.e., Mutations No. 437 and 438 dated 24.02.1986 challenged the same in an Appeal before the Joint Financial Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Act), Jammu, who vide its order dated 12.04.1986 allowed the appeal and set aside the aforesaid Mutation order passed in favour of respondents 1 to 3. Resultantly, the case was remanded to Sub Divisional Magistrate (Collector), Reasi for passing fresh order. The writ petitioner-appellant also challenged the Mutation Order No. 133 dated 24.02.1984 attested in favour of respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the land situated at village Dharava by filing an appeal before the Agrarian Reform? Commissioner, Jammu, which too was accepted and Mutation Order No. 133 came to be set aside, and the case was also remanded to Sub, Divisional Magistrate (Collector), Reasi for passing appropriate orders. 5. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Collector), Reasi after holding fresh enquiry in pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 12.04.1986 remanded the case back to Tehsildar, Reasi vide order dated 06.03.1991 for holding fresh enquiry. In compliance of aforesaid order, Mutation No. 437 under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms and Mutation No. 438 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act came to be attested in favour of the writ petitioner-appellant by the Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms, Reasi vide order dated 04.07.1992. It is contended that respondents I to 3 never challenged the aforesaid order of attestation of Mutations passed by Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms, Reasi, instead challenged order dated 06.03.1991 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Collector), Reasi through the medium of an appeal before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu, who vide its order dated 27.07.1993 rejected the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Collector), Reasi. 6. 6. Aggrieved thereof, respondents 1 to 3 preferred revision petition against order dated 27.07.1993 before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, which came to be allowed by learned Tribunal vide its order dated 14.03.1997, and the order dated 27.07.1993 passed by Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu came to be set aside. Learned Tribunal while allowing the revision petition clearly held that the property of deceased Sheetal Dass would devolve upon respondents 1 to 3 by operation of provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act as also in terms of last will executed by late Sheetal Dass. 7. Order passed by learned Tribunal, Jammu was assailed by the writ petitioner-appellant before the learned Single Judge by medium of OWP No. 253/1997. Learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition vide its order dated 17.12.1999, impugned in this appeal, and consequently upheld the judgment and order dated 14.03.1997 passed by learned Tribunal. 8. Aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner-appellant has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge primarily on the following grounds-- (i) That the order has been passed by the writ court in haste without taking into consideration the facts of the case. (ii) That the writ court has wrongly relied upon the findings of learned Tribunal, respondent No. 4 herein, who did not look into the legal aspects of the case while passing the order dated 14.03.1997. The learned Tribunal has ignored the provisions of Section 15 of the J&K Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. (iii) That the writ court has failed to appreciate that Sheetal Dass, adoptive father of the appellant was in personal cultivation of the land under dispute in Kharif 1971 and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Sheetal Dass and Sansar Chand (father of respondents 1 to 3). (iv) That cancellation of valid adoption deed duly registered by Sub-Registrar Reasi is violative of Section 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, therefore, said cancellation deed is non-est in the eyes of law. (v) That execution of will was in violation of provisions contained in Section 28 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and Section 67of the J&K Tenancy Act. (v) That execution of will was in violation of provisions contained in Section 28 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and Section 67of the J&K Tenancy Act. (vi) That the writ court has passed the order in an arbitrary manner and has not appreciated that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is violative of appellants right to property guaranteed under Section 1 of the Constitution of India. (vii) That the writ court has erroneously relied upon the inferences made by the learned Tribunal, which were contrary to the provisions of law, particularly the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act and the Agrarian Reforms Act, as no statement of the appellant was recorded by the Tehsildar Reasi. 9. For facility of reference, Section 28 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 is reproduced hereunder-- 28. 9. For facility of reference, Section 28 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 is reproduced hereunder-- 28. Right and Liabilities of prospective owner (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law- (a) a prospective owner of land eligible by or under this Act to acquire ownership rights in land under his personal cultivation shall continue to have all rights and be subject to all liabilities (including the payment to the State of the rent which was payable by him to the ex-landlord before the commencement of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972) as a tenant under the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980, until he is vested with ownership rights in such land; Provided that he shall be governed by the rules of succession applicable to occupancy tenants until he becomes owner of such land; (b) No prospective owner of the land shall, save as provided in proviso to Clause (a), transfer his rights in such land by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, will or by any other means whatsoever and any transfer of such rights made after the first day of May, 1973 shall be null and void and such rights shall vest in the State and such prospective owner and his transferee shall, after being given an opportunity of being heard, be dispossessed of such land by a Revenue Officer; Provided that a prospective owner shall have the right to transfer land in the form of simple mortgage subject to the provisions of the Alienation of Land Act, for securing loan to liquidate the amount of levy payable by him under this Act; and (c) No document purporting to effect transfer by a prospective owner of his rights in land shall be admitted to registration. 10. Mr. Wazir, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition, particularly, when the order passed by the learned Tribunal was in violation of Section 28 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and Section 67 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980. 10. Mr. Wazir, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition, particularly, when the order passed by the learned Tribunal was in violation of Section 28 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and Section 67 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980. He further argued that prospective owner of the land under Agrarian Reforms Act is not legally entitled to transfer his right in such land by way of sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, will or by any other means whatsoever, and transfer of any such rights made after the first day of May, 1973 would be null and void and such rights would vest in the State and such prospective owner and his transferee shall, after being given an opportunity of being heard, be dispossessed of such land by a Revenue Officer. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated aforesaid provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act and, thus, committed an error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant. 11. Next argument of Mr. Wazir was that the learned Single Judge has erroneously relied upon the inferences drawn by the learned Tribunal, which were contrary to the provisions of law, particularly, the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act and the Agrarian Reforms Act, besides being in sheer violation of appellants right to property guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. In support, Mr. Wazir has relied upon a judgment of this Court, in case, titled as S. Kirpal Singh v. S. Suchet Singh 2000 SLJ 225 : JKJ Soft JKJ/8494. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents resisted the appeal by vehemently arguing that the learned Tribunal has passed a well reasoned order, and the learned Single Judge after going through the same has rightly upheld the same. 13. Heard learned counsel for parties, perused the record as well as the documents annexed with the appeal and judgment impugned. 14. The facts which do not appear to be in dispute are that Sheetal Dass was recorded as occupancy tenant under the Landlord. However, in Jamabandi of 2002 BK, Sh. Sansar Chand, father of respondents 1 to 3 was recorded as tenant-at-will under Shri Sheetal Dass in respect of the land in question. 14. The facts which do not appear to be in dispute are that Sheetal Dass was recorded as occupancy tenant under the Landlord. However, in Jamabandi of 2002 BK, Sh. Sansar Chand, father of respondents 1 to 3 was recorded as tenant-at-will under Shri Sheetal Dass in respect of the land in question. This entry, as has been rightly found by the learned Tribunal, even subsisted in the Jamabandi for the years 1968-69 when Shri Sansar Chand was recorded as protected tenant. The revenue record, thus, makes it evident that Sansar Chand was in cultivating possession of the land as a protected tenant under Shri Sheetal Dass, a recorded occupancy tenant. Thus, the status of Sansar Chand firstly as a tenant-at-will and later on as a protected tenant had not been disputed by Shri Sheetal Dass during his life time. It is, however, discernible from the record, as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, that entries of Jambandi for the year 1968-69 were not incorporated in the Khasra Girdawari for the period 1968-69 to 1972-73, thus, name of Sansar Chand, as a protected tenant or his successors-in-interest came to be omitted. It is further transpired that Mutation No. 361 was attested to restore the position of cultivating possession of the successors-in-interest of Shri Sansar Chand in respect of land in question. Although, the aforesaid Mutation was set aside, but, the same could be looked into for collateral purpose. It is apparent that at the time of attestation of Mutation No. 361, Sheetal Dass had accepted the cultivating possession of Sansar Chand and his successors-in-interest. It is also true that at the time of attestation of aforesaid Mutation, Sheetal Dass did not mention anything about his adopted son nor of his cultivating possession. Sansar Chand, thus, was continuously cultivating the land much prior to the year 1947 and had rightly acquired the status of a protected tenant. As rightly held by the learned Tribunal that entries of Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 were of crucial importance and the same cannot be said to have been obliterated in the Khasra Girdwari without any basis or without there being any order by the competent authority. 15. As rightly held by the learned Tribunal that entries of Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 were of crucial importance and the same cannot be said to have been obliterated in the Khasra Girdwari without any basis or without there being any order by the competent authority. 15. After discussing in detail, learned Tribunal came to the following conclusions-- Further, it is clear that Shri Sheetal Dass was alive at the time when the Agrarian Reforms Act came into existence, so the case would be covered under the provisions of the said Act. From the perusal of the revenue records, it is apparent that the land was not in the cultivating possession of Shri Sheetal Dass, but Shri Sansar Chand was recorded as protected tenant. This too was confirmed by Shri Sheetal Dass. The last will which is operative substantiates the intention of Shri Sheetal Dass to devolve the property on the petitioner. This will is duly registered and section 13 of Adoption Act does lay down clearly that the very factum of adoption would not obviate or take away the inherent rights of the father to dispose off property by will. Thus, both on count of being in cultivating possession as well as by virtue of last will, the petitioner is entitled for the devolution of property of Shri Sheetal Dass. I, accordingly, accept the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Joint Financial Commissioner. The property shall devolve on the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act as well as keeping in view the last will executed by Shri Sheetal Dass. 16. Despite vehement persuasion of Mr. Wazir, learned Senior Advocate, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, who has only endorsed the finding of fact and law arrived at by the learned Tribunal. 17. Mr. Wazir has also referred to judgment passed in S. Kirpal Singh case (supra). We have carefully gone through the said judgment and we find that same has no application to the facts of this case. The issue determined by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid matter was with regard to permissibility of transfer of occupancy rights of evacuee land under Section 3-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act by way of will. The issue determined by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid matter was with regard to permissibility of transfer of occupancy rights of evacuee land under Section 3-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act by way of will. The Division Bench in the said case after referring to the provisions of Section 3-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act read with the provisions of Sections 60, 67 and 68 of the Tenancy Act has held that occupancy rights acquired under Section 3-A of the Act, were transferable only by way of sale, mortgage or gift and not by way of will. In the aforesaid case, Section 3-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act was not to be read in isolation, but, in consonance with Section 68 of the Tenancy Act. However, that is not the case here. In terms of Section 68 of the Tenancy Act, heir appointed by way of will would not succeed as such to a right of occupancy without consent of the Landlord. But, in the present case, no prior consent of the Landlord was required for transfer of occupancy rights by way of will. So, Section 68 of the Tenancy Act has no relevance to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the facts in the aforesaid case are entirely different and the issue decided in the aforesaid judgment is not an issue arising out of the instant proceedings. 18. Once it is held that Sansar Chand was in cultivating possession of the land as a protected tenant under Sheetal Dass in Kharief 1971, consequence would follow and he would become entitled to be declared as prospective owner in terms of Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, therefore, would be entitled to conferment of ownership rights in terms of Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. The claim of the appellant that he being the adopted son of Late Sheetal Dass is entitled to succeed to his estate, is not tenable for the reason that Sheetal Dass, who was not in cultivation possession of the land in Kharief 1971, was not entitled to be declared as prospective owner in terms of Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act and owner in terms of Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. Since Sheetal Dass never acquired ownership rights under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, as such, there was no question of the writ petitioner appellant succeeding to his right, even if, it is assumed that he was adopted by late Sheetal Dass. Even writ petitioner appellant never challenged the Cancellation of Adoption Deed executed by late Sheetal Dass. Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal that rights qua the property-in-question were to devolve under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act and not under Hindu Succession Act and the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act are correct in law. The learned Single Judge of this Court has also not committed any error in upholding the aforesaid findings and dismissing the writ petition of the writ petitioner-appellant. Viewed thus, we also do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single judge while upholding the judgment of J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu. Accordingly, judgment of learned Single Judge dated 17.12.1999 is upheld and appeal is dismissed along with connected CMA(s).