JUDGMENT : Ramesh Kumar Wattal, J. (Member) 1. The case is discussed under the following heads:- 1. Memorandum of Revision petition 2. Arguments of the petitioner 3. Arguments of the Respondents 4. Decision Memorandum of Revision Petition The petitioner has presented this Revision petition on the grounds; 1. That the land measuring 118 kanals 3 marlas comprising khasra No. 1 [34 kanals], khasra No. 17 (37 kanals 11 marlas) and khasra No. 18 (46 kanais and 12 marlas) of Village Channi Rama was owned by Kapoor Singh and other owners. This land was under the occupancy tenancy of Kanshi Ram and Nasher Din S/o. Chaghatta was in cultivating possession thereof; on coming into operation the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act. The owners Kapoor Singh and others and occupancy tenants Kanshi Ram did not include this land in their units of selection under Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 2007. Mutation No. 121 of village Channi Rama was thereafter attested in favor of the state. It is worthwhile to submit here that rights of Nasher Din who was non occupancy tenant in possession of said land were completely ignored while attesting mutation No. 121 of Village Channi Rama. 2. That vide award No. LA/669-70, dated 19.08.71 land measuring 74 kanals 06 marlas was shown to have been acquired for Housing Board while the remaining land measuring 43 kanals 19 marlas out of 118 kanals 03 marlas was shown to have been acquired for JDA vide award No. LA/1286-89, dated 31.03.84. However, possession of land measuring 38 kanals Sic marlas was shown to have been taken in 1976 by JDA though no compensation of this land was paid to the owners because ownership has wrongly been shown to be that of State. As already submitted that Nasher Din was tenant of the land whose right were completely ignored while attesting mutation No. 121 of said village. It is submitted that Jan Mohd. S/o. Nasher Din who had run away during the disturbance of 2004 to save his life, after coming back filed a revision petition in 1968 before the Commissioner challenging the conferment of proprietary rights of the land measuring 118 kanals 03 marlas mentioned above on the State. The said revision petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Jan Mohd. S/o. Nasher Din who had run away during the disturbance of 2004 to save his life, after coming back filed a revision petition in 1968 before the Commissioner challenging the conferment of proprietary rights of the land measuring 118 kanals 03 marlas mentioned above on the State. The said revision petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Jan Mohd. thereafter, filed revision petition before Financial Commissioner who accepted the same on 08.07.1969 by holding that law of limitation was not applicable in view of the Section-30 of the B.L.E.A. Act. The Financial Commissioner further observed that it was the function of the Officer superior to Special Tehsildar who had attested mutation No. 121 to move for cancellation of the order under revision on the ground that the said land could not have been declared as escheated to the State unless the right of the Nasher Din who was the tiller of the land were considered and disposed of. Thus, the order of the Commissioner was set aside and the case was remanded back to Tehsildar Jammu for fresh enquiry and appropriate order with further direction that subject to the conditions prescribed by the BLEA Act being satisfied Nasher Din or his heirs were entitled to be given ownership right and entitlement to attestation of mutation in his favour. It is further submitted that the land comprising of Khasra No. 1, 17 and 18 of Channi Rama was in cultivating possession of Rohlu S/o. Kanshi R/o. Bhau, Chhagha S/o. Haria and Rohlu S/o. Lacchu the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents in this revision petition from 2005 onwards and yet mutation No. 121 was attested in favour of the State under BLEA Act 2007 BK. 3. That against the order of Financial Commissioner dt. 08.07.1969, State and other respondents filed a revision petition before the Revenue Minister who vide his order dt. 23.04.1971 accepted the revision petition and while setting aside the order of F.C. dated 08.07.1969 restored the mutation order dated 26.09.2007 passed by special Tehsildar Jammu, while attesting mutation No. 121 of Channi Rama. 4. That the order of Revenue Minister dt. 23.04.1971 was challenged in writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. However, again order of dismissal was accepted by the Hon'ble High Court. Thus the order of Financial Commissioner dated 08.07.1969 was restored. 5. 4. That the order of Revenue Minister dt. 23.04.1971 was challenged in writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. However, again order of dismissal was accepted by the Hon'ble High Court. Thus the order of Financial Commissioner dated 08.07.1969 was restored. 5. That on 27.08.1975 mutation No. 477 was attested on the basis of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 08.07.1969 where under 2/3rd share of the land of Kapoor Singh and others of which Kanshi Ram was the occupancy tenant was mutated in favour of Jan Mohd. S/o. Nasher Din R/o Channi Rama Tehsil Jammu. The order was passed on 27.08.1975. 6. That the order dated 27.08.1975 passed by Tehsildar Jammu was challenged by Sat pal and others in appeal No. 58-A before the Collector Agr. Ref. Jammu. The state did not go in appeal against the order dt. 27.08.75. In this appeal it was stated that mutation No. 121 was attested on 26.09.2010 where under proprietary rights were transferred in favour of the State from 08.07.1969, the revision petition filed by Jan Mohd. was attested by F.C. and the case was remanded for denovo enquiry and others whereupon on 27.08.1975, the Tehsildar Jammu had passed order impugned in the said appeal where under 39 kanals 09 marlas of the land comprising k. No. 17 (5 kanals 5 marlas) and k. No. 1 (34 kanals 04 marlas) being 1/3rd share of the total land was mutated in favour of the State while the remaining 2/3rd share of the total land was mutated in favour of Jan Mohd. and thus the land mutated in favour of Jan Mohd. comprising khasra No. 17 (32 kanals 06 marlas) and K. No. 18 (46 kanals 12 Marias). In this appeal it was stated that the appellant being tenant on crucial date were entitled to ownership right and thus 1/3rd share of the land could not be mutated in favour of the State. This appeal was decided by the Collector Agr. Ref. on 07.04.1989 who after thorough consideration of the facts came to the following conclusion:- i. Jan Mohd. was entitled to proprietary rights with respect to land measuring 42 Kanals 12 Marias compromising kh. No. 18 min of village Channi Rama in terms of section-5 B.L.E.A. Act. ii. This appeal was decided by the Collector Agr. Ref. on 07.04.1989 who after thorough consideration of the facts came to the following conclusion:- i. Jan Mohd. was entitled to proprietary rights with respect to land measuring 42 Kanals 12 Marias compromising kh. No. 18 min of village Channi Rama in terms of section-5 B.L.E.A. Act. ii. Mahinder Lal S/o. Satpal, Passandu S/o. Rohlu, Faquir Chand, Om Parkash, Sansar Chand S/o. Chagha, Charan Dass, Sukh Dev S/o. Rohlu and Krishan Lal S/o. Karam Chand were entitled to proprietary rights with respect to land measuring 46 kanals 06 marlas compromising kh. No. 17 min (32 kanals 6 marlas) and k. No. 18 min (4 kanals). iii. Land measuring 39 kanals 9 marlas comprising kh. No. 1 (34 kanals 04 marlas) and kh. No. 17 (5 kanals 05 marlas) was to remain in the ownership of State. 7. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid order necessary amendments are made on mutation No. 477 on 10.04.1989. It is worthwhile to submit here that the land measuring 39 kanals 09 marlas were wrongly ordered to have been vested to the State as this land was also in possession of the private respondents on crucial date and ownership ought to have been transferred in favour of the said respondent in term of BLEA Act, 2007 BK. 2. That the order dated 07.04.1989 was challenged in appeal by the Jammu Development Authority before the Financial Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu who has accepted the appeal on 16.03.1999 aggrieved whereof the petitioner submits the present Revision Petition on the following grounds:- (a) That the order under revision is against law and facts of the case which is not sustainable. (b) That the findings of the lower appellate court that the petitioner trust had no concern with the land involved in the case and thus no locus standi is illegally as well as factually incorrect. It is submitted that Jan Mohd. by gift deed dated 16.03.1998 registered on 20.03.1998 as also deed of relinquishment by Mahinder Lal S/o. Satpal, Jan Mohd., Sukhdev S/o. Rohlu, Krishan Lal S/o. Karam Chand, Fakir Chand, Om Parkash, Sansar Chand S/o. Chaga Ram had transferred the land in favour of the trust and even mutation No. 420 of Village Channi Rama stood mutated in favour of the petitioner trust. Under these circumstances vital interest of the petitioner stood involved which could not be ignored by the court below by holding that petitioner had no locus standi. (c) That no opportunity was given to the petitioner of being heard. The petitioner has been condemned unheard and thus there has been gross violation of principals of natural justice. (d) That as against order No. 27.08.1975, the Jammu development authority had not filed any appeal. The said Jammu Development Authority was not a party in appeal No. 58-A before the Collector land Reforms [Assistant Commissioner] [R] Jammu. Obviously, it was Jammu Development Authority which had no locus standi to file appeal. Being not party to the appeal the Jammu Development Authority could not be stated to have any right or grievances against the decision delivered by the assistant Commissioner [Collector Agrarian Reforms] Jammu dated 07.04.1989. (e) That the appeal being not accompanied by certified copy of order dated 07.04.1989 appealed against the appeal was not entertainable by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms. (f) That the award dated 19.08.1977 given by the collector land acquisition was so given when the rights of ownership had wrongly been confer on the state in terms of mutation No. 121 of village Channi Rama Tehsil Jammu. It is submitted that the rights of private respondents who were in possession of the lands and had wrongly been deprived ownership right in term of mutation No. 121 were not considered and even Jan Mohd. was able to establish his right only when letters patent appeal filed by him, came to be decided where under order passed by Financial Commissioner stood revived. In this situation proceeding under land acquisition act were not binding upon Jan Mohd. when decidedly he could not be stated to be interested person as at that time ownership had wrongly been conferred on the state vide mutation No. 121 of Village Channi Rama. The subsequent events could not be ignored by the court below. Similarly, the land acquisition proceedings which culminated in passing of the award dated 31.03.1984 and did not take into consideration the rights of private respondents including Jan Mohd. It is worthwhile to bring this fact in notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal in both the aforesaid awards Khasra No. 1, 17, and 18 does not figure at all and obviously land forming part of these Khasra No. was never acquired. It is worthwhile to bring this fact in notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal in both the aforesaid awards Khasra No. 1, 17, and 18 does not figure at all and obviously land forming part of these Khasra No. was never acquired. (g) That there is no provision under law where under possession of land can be taken over and delivered to a third party without the consent and knowledge of the owner. Since, the land was stated to be state land, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner could not file objection in the said land acquisition preceding in 1971 culminating in awards in 1971 and 1984. Again the second award was given in 1984, there could be no delivery of possession in 1971 of the land on the basis of award made in 1984 when Khasra No. 1, 17 and 18 were not involved in the said award. (h) That he would appear from the judgment impugned the land is stated to have been acquired for construction of road and thus the acquisition proceedings were against the provisions of law which were not sustainable. (i) The land was never taken into possession by JDA, Housing Board. As a matter of fact 5 kanals of land out of Khasra No. 1 has been under possession of PWD while 15 marlas of land from out of Khasra No. 17 has been forcibly occupied by Police and out of the remaining land 1 kanals 07 marlas from out of Khasra No. 1 and 12 kanals from out of Khasra No. 17 together with 26 kanals is stated to be in possession of JDA. However JDA is in possession of 39 kanals of land while the remaining land from out of 118 kanals 03 marlas is in physical possession of 39 kanals is in physical possession of the petitioner which land is for construction of Shiv Shakti temple and Serve Dharma Yatri Bhawan a noble public cause and this land has always in possession of the petitioner and its predecessor-in-interest. (J) ........... (k) That the order of Collector Agr. Reforms suffered from no infirmity worth name. After the case was remanded to him there was no bar for him to ascertain the truth. His jurisdiction was not restricted only to ascertain whether the land had come under Town Planning Act and if so what rights could be claimed by the petitioner and the private respondents. Reforms suffered from no infirmity worth name. After the case was remanded to him there was no bar for him to ascertain the truth. His jurisdiction was not restricted only to ascertain whether the land had come under Town Planning Act and if so what rights could be claimed by the petitioner and the private respondents. The fact could be ascertained by the appellate Court itself. (l) There was no cogent evidence to prove that the predecessor in interest of the private respondents had revived compensation in connection with the acquisition of the land. They had only received compensation for constructions and improvements. It was submitted in the statements that they have mentioned that case pertaining to ownership rights was pending before F.C. Even otherwise a wrong admission can always be withdrawn, the mention of allotment and that too in the statement of illiterate persons was not such a fact or so as to destroy the rights of some of the private respondents by statue which stood conferred upon them in terms of BLEA Act. There cannot be estoppel against statue. (m) That the ACR Collector Agr. Ref. enjoyed jurisdiction to correct girdawari entries if these were found wrongly reflected in the concerned register. (n) That the Court below has admitted that record was not properly maintained and submitted that wrong report of Patwari has been made on the basis for judgment impugned in the revision petition. And it is submitted that the report of the Patwari could not destroy the factual position supported by record such as girdawari register. (o) That on the basis of report of Patwari the Court below has drawn inference and on the basis of these inferences and report of Patwari the order impugned has been passed which is not sustainable. (p) No opportunity was given to the private respondents to rebut the said statements recorded in the form of single statement as also to rebut the contents of the application alleged to have been made by then for allotment of land. (q) All these proceedings were initiated for many years after the attestation of mutation No. 121. Under these circumstances the bar of three months for correction of entries cannot be stated to be a factor which could destroy the rights of the petitioner and private respondents. (q) All these proceedings were initiated for many years after the attestation of mutation No. 121. Under these circumstances the bar of three months for correction of entries cannot be stated to be a factor which could destroy the rights of the petitioner and private respondents. (r) That the Court below has completely ignored the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court decided on 23.05.1973. Thus, mutation No. 121 was of no consequence so far as rights of the petitioner and private respondents are concerned. (s) That jamabandi 1958-59 reflecting allotment of land in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents could not be stated to be conclusive proof simply because of the reasons that much after 1958-59 these jamabandies entries reflecting the State as proprietor were held to be incorrect by the Financial Commissioner. There was no question of applicability of principle because private respondents had not challenged the 1958-59 jamabandies entries. (t) That the Court below has fell in error to hold that the Asstt. Commissioner (Collector) Agr. Ref. had no jurisdiction to reopen the entries of Kharief 2007. The mutation No. 121 attested on the basis of 2007 entries was set aside after so many years prove that said entries were wrong. (u) On the other hand the Collector was justified to hold that private respondents and their predecessor-in-interest were in possession of 118 Kanals and 3 marlas of the land in question on crucial date under BLEA Act 2007 BK. (v) That there was no misrepresentation made by private respondents. The Asstt. Commr. (Collector) Agr. Reforms had not misdirected himself. He had jurisdiction and competence to pass the order which was wrongly been set aside by the Court below. (w) That the Collector Land Acquisition himself has given a certificate on application dated 05.04.1997 moved by the petitioner to this effect that as per copy of mutation No. 420 of village Channi Rama attested on 16.12.1993 land comprising Khasra No. 17 min (16 kanals 04 marlas) and 18 min (1 kanals 19 marlas) situated in village Channi Rama is in possession of the petitioner together with land measuring 10 kanals 18 marlas comprising of Khasra No. 18 min of the said village as per copies of Khasra girdawari. He further stated that the aforesaid land comprising of Khasra No. 17 and 18 min as per available record is not included in the award No. 7/LA/1971-72, dated 30.03.1972 of village Channi Rama. Even there I report of the Field Staff of Office of Collector Land Acquisition PWD Jammu to this effect that Khasra No. 1, 17 and 18 of Channi Rama though stands mentioned in notification u/s. 4 No. LA/388-92 dated. 25.07.1970. Notification u/s. 6, 7 and 17 bearing No. RED/378 of 1970 issued under No. Rev/LA/508/70, dated 12.12.1970 and notification No. 9 and 9-A issued under No. LA/999-001, dt. 26.12.70 yet in the award published under No. LA/669-70, dated 09.08.1971 land farming part of the said Khasra No. 1, 17 and 18 does not find place. It has further been reported that even in award No. LA/1286-88, dated 31.03.1984 the said Khasra No. 1, 17 and 18 also do not find their place. Obviously, the land comprising Khasra No. 1, 17 and 198 was never acquired. Thus, there could arise no occasion for payment of compensation to any person interest or otherwise. The said report has been transmitted to the petitioner by Naib Tehsildar of PWD. (x) That the petitioner had also applied to Collector Land Acquisition PWD Jammu for supply of copy of award dated 29.08.71. Again an Office report was called and the concerned Officer has reported that upon going through the concerned file, it has been found by him that there is no apportionment statement separately attached with the award dated 09.08.1971 even there is report of Tehsildar JDA Jammu which he had submitted to Jammu Development Authority in which it has been stated that the land measuring 12 kanals 5 marlas acquired by the JDA from out of Khasra No. 17 is only in possession of JDA while the remaining land is lying vacant which is outside Jammu Development Authority and the petitioner requested that the present revision petition may kindly be accepted and order under revision may be set aside. Arguments of petitioner 3. Arguments of petitioner 3. While submitting written arguments the petitioner has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment dated 16-03-1999 passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (Financial Commissioner), Jammu is liable to be set aside among others, on the following grounds:- (i) That admittedly the mutation order No. 121 was set aside by the Financial Commissioner J & K vide order dated 08-07-1969. The same was challenged before the Revenue Minister who set aside the said order. The said order passed by the Revenue Minister was challenged by Sh. Jan Mohd. in a writ petition which too was dismissed. Sh. Jan Mohd. filed an appeal (LPA) before the Hon'ble Division Bench which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 23-05-1973. The said judgment has been reported in Jan Mohd. v. Revenue Minister & Ors. 1975 KLJ 11. Consequently, the judgment passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 08-07-1969 has been upheld. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the Learned Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (Financial Commissioner) Jammu while setting aside the judgment and order dated 07-04-1989 and restoring the mutation Order No. 121 which has already been set aside. (ii) That the Financial Commissioner, Jammu vide his judgment and order dated 08-07-1969 has recorded a clear finding that ordinarily, by operation of Big Landed Estate Abolition Act, the land should have been mutated in the name of Sh. Nasher Din (father of Sh. Jan Mohd.) on the strength of the entry in column No. 5 of the mutation sheet which however was not done. It is in this behalf submitted that in the mutation order sheet No. 121, Sh. Nasher Din has clearly been reflected as tenant in respect of the land. In the same order a finding has been recorded that Sh. Nasher Din was cultivating the land on first Baisakhi 2004, but he could not continue cultivation of the land on account of the fact that communal disturbance broke out in 1947 in the State which forced him, his father and other family members to leave the state. While on the run, his father Sh. Nasher Din was killed in the state territory and he (Jan Mohd.) had narrowly escaped and somehow reached Pakistan where he remained till 2007. The Financial Commissioner has thus recorded a finding that the abandonment of the cultivating possession was therefore, entirely beyond his control. While on the run, his father Sh. Nasher Din was killed in the state territory and he (Jan Mohd.) had narrowly escaped and somehow reached Pakistan where he remained till 2007. The Financial Commissioner has thus recorded a finding that the abandonment of the cultivating possession was therefore, entirely beyond his control. Admittedly, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner has been upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench. This aspect of the case has been considered by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms while passing the order impugned as such is liable to be set aside. (iii) That the learned Financial Commissioner in the said order dated 08-07-1969 has also recorded the following important findings:- "There is another aspect of the case which merit consideration. By his order on the mutation what the revenue officer who have done was to mutate his property in the name of Nasher Din unless he was by virtue of the provision of Big Landed Estate Abolition Act, ineligible for conferment of right of a owner, e.g. if he was found not to be permanent resident." Admittedly, Sh. Nasher Din, father of Sh. Jan Mohd. was entitled to conferment of ownership right under Big Landed Estate Abolition Act. This aspect of the case has also not been considered by the court below as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. (iv) That the learned Financial Commissioner in the order dated 08-07-1969 has further recorded the following important findings:- "Irrespective of whether Sh. Jan Mohd. came forward with a prayer or not, it was the function of all officers superior to the Special Tehsildar who has attested the mutation, to move for cancellation of this order in revision on the mere ground that the land could not have been declared escheated to the state until Nasher Din's possible rights as a tiller of this land were first considered and disposed of." In other words, a clear finding has been given that Sh. Nasher Din was entitled to conferment of ownership right. This aspect of the case has also not been considered by the court below, as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Nasher Din was entitled to conferment of ownership right. This aspect of the case has also not been considered by the court below, as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. (v) That the order dated 16.03.1999 passed by the Learned Financial Commissioner with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu which is impugned herein is contrary to the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner vide judgment and order dated 08.07.1969. As a matter of fact, the finding recorded in judgment and order dated 08.07.1969 have been ignored while passing the order impugned. The order impugned, therefore, is not sustainable as such deserves to be set aside. (vi) That admittedly the earlier round of litigation was started by Sh. Jan Mohd. which reached upto the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Hon'ble Division Bench set aside the order passed by the learned Revenue Minister and consequently the order passed by the Learned Financial Commissioner dated 08.07.1969 was upheld. Thus, in pursuance of the said order, the rights of Sh. Jan Mohd. in respect of the land in dispute was required to be determined with reference to the tenancy right held by his father who was killed in the state of J & K. A bare perusal of the order impugned shows that the rights of Sh. Jan Mohd. have not been determined at all. As a matter of fact, no finding regarding the claim of Sh. Jan Mohd. has been made in the order impugned. The judgment and order impugned, therefore, is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. As submitted above, in the earlier round of litigation, a clear finding has been recorded by the Financial Commissioner in his order dated 08.07.1969 that the father of Sh. Jan Mohd., Sh. Nasher Din was in cultivating possession as tenant of the land. In the revenue record his name was continuously recorded as tenant. A copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 Bikrami 1995-96 Bikrami is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-N alongwith Jamabandi Chaterbab for 2003-2004, 1987-1988 Bikrami. While attesting the mutation Order No. 121, his name has also been reflected as tenant. Because of this entry, the Financial Commissioner in his order dated 08.07.1969 as recorded a finding that the mutation ought to have been attested in his favour. (vii) That the order dated 08.07.1969 has attained the finality. While attesting the mutation Order No. 121, his name has also been reflected as tenant. Because of this entry, the Financial Commissioner in his order dated 08.07.1969 as recorded a finding that the mutation ought to have been attested in his favour. (vii) That the order dated 08.07.1969 has attained the finality. The finding recorded therein could not have been ignored by the Financial Commissioner while passing the order impugned. The order impugned, therefore, is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. (viii) That after remand made by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 08.07.1969, only thing which was required to be determined by mutating officer was as to whether Sh. Nasher Din and his legal heirs were state subject. The Mutating Officer after holding the enquiry has come to the conclusion that the land was being cultivated by Sh. Nasher Din as tenant and consequently the ownership rights were conferred in favour of his son Sh. Jan Mohd. There was no justification for the Financial Commissioner by restoring the mutation Order No. 121 which has been set aside by the learned Financial Commissioner Jammu and which order was upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Financial Commissioner, therefore, has acted without jurisdiction as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. (ix) That after setting aside the mutation Order No. 121 by the Financial Commissioner vide judgment and order dated 08.07.1969, the land in dispute ceased to be state land. The said land, therefore, could not have been acquired for the Housing Board or the Jammu Development Authority as a state land. The claim of the Housing Board and Jammu Development Authority, therefore, was/is untenable and illegal. (x) That the finding of the court below that the land in dispute was acquired for Housing Board vide award No. LA/669-70, dated 19.08.1971 and the balance land was acquired for Jammu Development Authority by award No. LA/669-70, dated 19.08.1971 is also factually incorrect. On the other hand, the Jammu Development Authority in the memo of appeal has pleaded that 74 kanals of land was acquired vide award dated 19.11.1971 and balance land was acquired by it vide award No. LA/1286-89, dated ______claim of the Housing Board and Jammu Development Authority, therefore, was/is untenable and illegal. On the other hand, the Jammu Development Authority in the memo of appeal has pleaded that 74 kanals of land was acquired vide award dated 19.11.1971 and balance land was acquired by it vide award No. LA/1286-89, dated ______claim of the Housing Board and Jammu Development Authority, therefore, was/is untenable and illegal. That the finding of the court below that the land in dispute was acquired for Housing Board vide award No. LA/669-70, dated 19.08.1971 and the balance land was acquired for Jammu Development Authority by award No. LA/669-70, dated 19.08.1971 is also factually incorrect. On the other hand, the Jammu Development Authority in the memo of appeal has pleaded that 74 kanals of land was acquired vide award dated 19.11.1971 and balance land was acquired by it vide award No. LA/1286-89, dated 31.03.1984. It is, therefore, clear that the finding of the learned Financial Commissioner with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms and factually incorrect and consequently the order impugned is liable to be set aside. (xi) That it is specifically submitted that the aforesaid land was never acquired by the Housing Board. Admittedly, there is no development work done by the Housing Board on the aforesaid land. Thus, the finding recorded in the order impugned in that behalf is factually incorrect. So far as the alleged award dated 19.11.1971 and 31.03.1984 are concerned, the land in dispute was not acquired nor the same could have been acquired. Had the said land been acquired by the Jammu Development Authority on 19.11.1971, the same would have been reflected in the revenue record and the question of attestation of mutation would not have arisen on 27.08.1975 in favour of Sh. Jan Mohd. This fact is sufficient to prove that the land was never acquired. The order impugned, therefore, is not sustainable in law and bereft from the facts. (xii) That it is significant to mention here that the J & K Development Act was enacted and enforced on 31.10.1970, the Jammu Development Authority was constituted in pursuance of the aforesaid Act. Much thereafter, some state land was ordered to be transferred in favour of Jammu Development Authority for the first time in the year 1973 by virtue of a Government Order. In these circumstances, the question of acquisition of land in the year 1971 does not arise. (xiii) That even in the revenue record the land is still recorded as private land. In these circumstances, the question of acquisition of land in the year 1971 does not arise. (xiii) That even in the revenue record the land is still recorded as private land. Had it been acquired for Housing Board or Jammu Development Authority as has been held by the court below, the land would have been reflected in the revenue record in their favour. Thus, the said findings are without any basis and outcome of non application of mind. The order is not sustainable in law. The court below has recorded further finding that the original file has got misplaced. A direction was given to conduct the enquiry for locating the said file. Without waiting for locating the said file, the order impugned has been passed which is not permissible. (xiv) That since the land was no more the state land and mutation order No. 121 has been set aside by the Financial Commissioner, Jammu in the year 1969 and upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the court below had no jurisdiction to treat it as state land. Admittedly, the Jammu Development Authority, was denying the property to the proceedings in the first round of litigation or even upto 1991 when the appeal was filed by it (Jammu Development Authority) against the order dated 07.04.1989 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu. The Jammu Development Authority was claiming the land to have been acquired in the year 1971 and 1984 which is factually incorrect. The order impugned, therefore, is liable to be set aside on this ground as well. (xv) That assuming for the sake of arguments, though denying that the aforesaid land could have been acquired. Sh. Jan Mohd. and others in whose favour the mutation order dated 07.04.1989 was attested were very much entitled to compensation. They could not have been deprived from the said compensation. In any case, as submitted above, the said land was not acquired in accordance with law as such the Jammu Development Authority has no claim in respect of the land in dispute. (xvi) That so far as the finding of the court below that the petitioner has no right in respect of the suit land is concerned, the same is also factually incorrect and legally misconceived. (xvi) That so far as the finding of the court below that the petitioner has no right in respect of the suit land is concerned, the same is also factually incorrect and legally misconceived. As submitted above, the petitioner has acquired the land by way of gift and relinquishment deed in the favour of the trust for the benefits of the yatries belonging to any religious. The petitioner, therefore, has acquired the legal rights in pursuance of the said documents. This aspect of the case has not been considered in accordance with the facts of the case and law on the point, as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. (xvii) That the petitioner has acquired all the rights in respect of the entire land covered by the mutation order No. 477, dated 07.04.1989. The same remained in possession of the petitioner. Thus, the findings of the court below regarding the rights of the petitioner are not only without any basis but also without any valid reasons. (xviii) That much after remand order passed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 24.11.2000, the land was in peaceful possession of the petitioner. There was a stay order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 25.04.2003. The Jammu Development Authority started interfering in the possession of the land in dispute. When the Jammu Development Authority started interfering, an application was filed by the petitioner and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 05.11.2008 directed the Vice Chairman of Jammu Development Authority and the SHO Police Station, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu to strictly enforce the said order issued in the case. Even the said order was not complied with. Again this Hon'ble Court directed the Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority, Tehsildar, Jammu and SHO Police Station, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu to submit the compliance report as already directed vide order dated 05.11.2008. The said order was also not complied with and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28.11.2008 directed the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jammu to implement the said order in letter and spirit. Subsequently, vide order dated 15.01.2009, this Hon'ble Court directed that the Jammu Development Authority should not raise the construction of the land in dispute till further orders and compliance to that effect be filed. Superintendent of Police, Jammu to implement the said order in letter and spirit. Subsequently, vide order dated 15.01.2009, this Hon'ble Court directed that the Jammu Development Authority should not raise the construction of the land in dispute till further orders and compliance to that effect be filed. Despite all the aforesaid directions, the Jammu Development Authority took forcible possession and has made entire land which was owned and possesses by the petitioner as park. (xix) That it is submitted that four contempt petitioners are pending in this Hon'ble Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the old possession deserves to be restored in favour of the petitioner. (xx) That as a matter of fact while remanding the case by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 24.11.2000, a clear finding has been recorded that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court (Division Bench) determining the rights of Sh. Jan Mohd. would be given due consideration. In other words, it has been held that the order passed in favour of Sh. Jan Mohd. had attained the finality which could not have been re-opened by the court below. Not only this, a further finding has been given by the Hon'ble High Court that so far as the Jammu Development Authority was concerned, it had merely to pay compensation to the erstwhile owners and the dispute which was going to be decided by the Tribunal would ultimately to disburse the compensation to the persons entitled to the same. In other words, the Hon'ble High Court has recorded a finding that the land was owned by the private persons i.e. Sh. Jan Mohd. etc. As submitted above, the said land has been acquired by the petitioner from Sh. Jan Mohd. and others in whose favour the mutation order dated 07.04.1989 has been attested. (xxi) That it is submitted that Sh. Tirath Kumar is the sole trustee of the petitioner trust. When the revision petition was filed through its Secretary, he was not available and accordingly, he was made proforma respondent. An application was filed on 06.11.2013 in this Hon'ble Court for impleading Sh. Tirath Kumar and other four office bearers of the trust as party petitioners which have been accepted vide order dated 18.02.2015. Sh. Brij Lal who was Secretary at the time of filing of petition was removed from the post of secretary in the year 2006. An application was filed on 06.11.2013 in this Hon'ble Court for impleading Sh. Tirath Kumar and other four office bearers of the trust as party petitioners which have been accepted vide order dated 18.02.2015. Sh. Brij Lal who was Secretary at the time of filing of petition was removed from the post of secretary in the year 2006. The present petition therefore, is being persuaded by the sole trustee Sh. Tirath Kumar and other four office bearers. (xxii) That judged from any angle, the revision petition deserves to be allowed and judgment and order liable to be set aside. 4. In the end it is prayed that for the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition may be allowed and the judgment and order impugned set aside. Arguments of Respondent 5. Respondent JDA has submitted the written arguments as under:- 1. That for the 1st time Jammu Development Authority was informed by the collector land acquisition PWD Jammu, that the land comprising under Khasra No. 1, 17 and 18 which is acquired land under the provisions of state land acquisition act, has been promptly given in ownership to that tenants including Jan Mohd. all the residents of Channi Rama Tehsil and district Jammu by virtue of the order dated 7th of April 1989 passed by the then collector agrarian reforms, assistant Commissioner revenue Jammu. After getting the knowledge of the decision from the collector land acquisition, Jammu Development Authority immediately filed appeal against the ex-party order of collector agrarian reforms Jammu dated 7th of April 1989, before the court of learned joint Financial Commissioner the powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu and obtained the order. Brief facts available at that time are incorporated in the memo of appeal filed by Jammu Development Authority. The appeal was finally taken up for the final hearing by the Financial Commissioner, Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu and Kashmir Jammu, namely Ms. Sushma Choudhary IAS, Financial Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir. The Learned Financial Commissioner, Commissioner Agrarian Reformers besides hearing the appeal on factual and legal points, called the reports and made a thorough enquiry into the matter on the basis of entire revenue record right from the year 1947 of the year 1999 A.D. 2. That the learned Financial Commissioner, Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu and Kashmir while deciding the appeal of Jammu Development Authority have considered the matter. That the learned Financial Commissioner, Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu and Kashmir while deciding the appeal of Jammu Development Authority have considered the matter. The relevant extract from the judgment and order of Learned Financial Commissioner Agrarian Reforms is reproduced as under:- The counsel for the appellant argued the case thoroughly and through written arguments. The advocate of respondents stated that written arguments with the file. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the respondent is that impugned order is validly passed. That the land under dispute has been acquired in 1971 under land acquisition Act and no rights ever would have accrued to any of the respondents. That the petitioners were aware of this fact as they had received compensation but they misrepresented the position to mislead the court. Their conduct amounts to cheating and they are liable to be prosecuted. 6. That from the perusal of the record reveals that the record file has been misplaced as per the report from the office of the Commissioner. A separate enquiry for fixation of responsibility in the order for misplacement of files is required to be initiated. The chronological history has been mandated from the records reveals that the land comprising under Khasra No. 1, 17, 18 measuring 43 kanals and 19 marlas belonging to Kapoor Singh and others as owners. Kanshi Ram was recorded as occupancy tenant under section 4. Neither the owners not the tenants included the said land in the respective claims and therefore, were found in-eligible to retain the same by the Tehsildar vide his order passed on mutation No. 121. The land being excess of the ceiling described who are the owners as well as the recorded occupancy tenants, was restricted to the decision by the Tehsildar vide his order passed on mutation No. 121, dated 26 of Poh 2000. Is the Genesis of the case. A revision petition was apparently filed before Financial Commissioner by one Jan Mohd. The case was remanded for fresh enquiry on the basis of which fresh mutation under No. 477 was attested by virtue of which land measuring 78 kanals and 18 marlas was given in proprietary rights to Jan Mohd. son of Nasher Din Gujjar and the rest of the land was escheated to the state. Order was challenged before the Financial Commissioner who again remanded the case. son of Nasher Din Gujjar and the rest of the land was escheated to the state. Order was challenged before the Financial Commissioner who again remanded the case. The case was remanded primarily to see whether the rights under order No. 371-C would have been granted to the parties as the area where land is located had been brought under the master plan. The impugned order of Assistant Commissioner has been passed in pursuance of the remand order. 7. In 2010 the mutation No. 121 was attested in regard to the areas concerning Khasra No. 1, 17, 18 situated at Channi Rama as owners did not select this area in their respective claims and it was found in excess of the ceiling areas prescribed both the owners and tenants. As such the disputed land was escheated to the state. There is no mention in the order passed on mutation that anybody had objected to the recorded version as to the cultivating possession of land up to 2010 when the mutation was attested. The records had shown only occupancy tenancy to be in possession of the land on the determinant date of kharief 2007. There is no documentary evidence or the revenue record to prove that respondents, the petitioners herein were in cultivating possession right in 2005 as used to be the stance taken by the Assistant Commissioner reasonably on the basis of some verbal enquiries made by him. 8. All the parties namely Chuga, Sat Paul, Passandu made statement before the Tehsildar that the land comprising under Khasra No. 1, 17 and 18 belonged to the state and it has been allotted to them. They have also admitted that the said land was coming under the acquisition of road and therefore, they would be satisfied if they were given the compensation. Both the documents, therefore, are mutually complementary and are very relevant to understand the respective individual mutation No. 121 was attested. They have also admitted that the said land was coming under the acquisition of road and therefore, they would be satisfied if they were given the compensation. Both the documents, therefore, are mutually complementary and are very relevant to understand the respective individual mutation No. 121 was attested. As per the provisions of Big landed estate abolition act the entries as the cultivating possession are to be presumed the correct, however correction of the entry would be sought within this related period of 3 months as per the provisions of Big landed Estate Abolition Act The mandatory provision makes it amply clear that no powers are vested with any authority to make any correction of the entries in record to the cultivating possession in 2007 or even prior to that period. Thus, Assistant Commissioner would not have assumed the powers and made the correction of the entry of 2007 or even prior to that period. He acted without jurisdiction and that by relying on the verbal enquiry conducted in 1989 more so then Assistant Commissioner was irresponsible revenue officer, who should have taken a resort to the entries in the important and vital revenue record namely Jamabandi for arriving at the conclusion. Fact is that as per Jamabandi of 1958-59, Chajju, Rohlu, Sat Pal had been recorded as allottees and not have been decried. 9. The facts of allotment inheres the element of recommending the ownership of the state. The Assistant Commissioner overlooked the explicit and documentary evidence which was available or he deliberately chose to ignore it. He has also eschewed the most vital evidence that the disputed land had been acquired for housing Board and Jammu Development Authority. 10. There is a documentary evidence to show that the disputed land was acquired for the housing board and the possession of the land had been taken over under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act on 19th of August 1971. Similarly, the balance land was acquired by Jammu Development Authority on 19th of August 1971 but the possession had been taken over in the 1971 which is revealed as per the records available. Similarly, the balance land was acquired by Jammu Development Authority on 19th of August 1971 but the possession had been taken over in the 1971 which is revealed as per the records available. The perusal of the final award in both the cases reveals that officer have specifically discussed the claim of the respondents, the petitioners herein and it has been mentioned that they are the allottees of the land in dispute and in this regard they have produced the allotment order of 1959. It is on the basis of the said allotment order produced by the respondents that they had been paid the compensation for this very disputed land at one 3rd of the assessed compensation. 11. In these circumstances the appeal was accepted and order passed by the assistant Commissioner was set aside. 12. Regarding the respondents, they have no concern with the land therefore no locus standi in the matter. The land in dispute having been acquired under the land acquisition Act by Housing Board/Jammu Development Authority and compensation having been duly paid for the question of anyone claiming possession or the rights does not arise. The order passed on mutation No. 121 did not warrant any interference and DC Jammu is hereby directed to fix the responsibility for misplacement of the files and DC Jammu was also directed to file an FIR against the respondents are having misrepresented the facts. 13. That against the judgment and order of learned Financial Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu and Kashmir dated 16th of March 1999, petitioner Shiv Shakti filed a revision petition before Jammu and Kashmir special tribunal Jammu. The revision petition was dismissed by special tribunal on 11 August 1999. The relevant part of judgment of Jammu and Kashmir special tribunal is reproduced below:-the land under dispute having been acquired and compensation paid to rightful persons, it should have been considered to be a closed chapter. 14. As far the rights of the respondent's sequel between private respondents are concerned these persons were responsible in the court of Financial Commissioner. In case they would have been aggrieved by the order impugned they would have definitely come again in a separate revision petition. As they have simply been arrayed as private parties, they are not necessary parties to be heard. In case they would have been aggrieved by the order impugned they would have definitely come again in a separate revision petition. As they have simply been arrayed as private parties, they are not necessary parties to be heard. Simply, the petitioner by impleading as the respondents is trying to mislead the court by creating confusion when mutation No. 121 has been restored by virtue of an order of Financial Commissioner, the names of private respondents automatically fail. 15. Viewed thus the revision petition was dismissed..........................Honourable High Court has given the directions to the honourable special tribunal specifically to re-examine the entire matter and passed fresh order of examining not only the legal position but also the factual position. 16. That what is the actual position of the case the same has been discussed at length by the learned Financial Commissioner, Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu and Kashmir and the statement of the parties who were before the courts below and particularly the statements of occupants of JDA land which was acquired to collector land acquisition PWD Jammu, is fully established and clarified on 5th of January 1971. That copies of the statements of the occupants of land comprising under Khasra No. 1, 17, 18 of village 70, is attached, although the same statement is already part of sub-ordinate court files along with the copies of awards. The honourable special tribunal may kindly take full notice of documents and the statements of occupants recorded before the collector land acquisition for more than 37 years ago. 17. That according to the awards passed by the collector land acquisition PWD Jammu, the occupants and the allottees of Khasra No. 1, 17 and 18 of village Channi, have received the amount of compensation awarded by the collector and for that reason the persons who were arrayed as respondents before the court of Financial Commissioner agrarian reforms Jammu and Kashmir before Jammu and Kashmir special tribunal and before honourable High Court did not come forward to claim the compensation. That the Financial Commissioner and special tribunal has previously taken note of missteps and confusion created by the said trustee under the name and style of Shiv Shakti Sain Trust. 18. That the Financial Commissioner and special tribunal has previously taken note of missteps and confusion created by the said trustee under the name and style of Shiv Shakti Sain Trust. 18. That it is pertinent to mention here that all those persons therein were misled by self styled trustee in the name of Shiv Sain Satgur Trust whose name has been misused by the self styled trustee Tirath kumar by executing relinquishment deeds and gift deeds in respect of the acquired land bearing survey no's 1, 17 and 18 of village's Channi Rama, later on they have also cancelled these documents and in this connection the documents were produced in a civil suit titled JDA versus......Tirath Kumar for the purpose of granting JDA land. 19. That it is further submitted that the original allottees and orphans had lost their rights and title and the land in question by virtue of acquisition of land made by the collector land acquisition in the year 1971, any document in any style executed by them, after passing of the final award is not at all to create any title or right in favour of the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that one's land is acquired and compensation paid to the interested persons within the meaning of land requisition act, no fresh compensation is payable..................... Thus petitioner has absolutely no right in the acquired land of Jammu Development Authority. It would be just and proper if the tribunal imposes costs of Rs. 5 Lacs upon the petitioner compensates Jammu Development Authority for defending the litigation for last 18 years. 20. Prayer is made that the revision petition be dismissed. JDA has lastly in supplementary arguments also argued that the land covered by the order of J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu dated 11.09.1999 and order of Financial Commissioner with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms J & K (1st Appellate Authority) questioned in OWP No. 34/1999 is an acquired land for which, Collector Land Acquisition PWD, Jammu has issued two awards under No. LA-669-70, dated 19.08.1971 and No. LA-1286-89, dated 31.03.1984. These awards have attained finality 45 years and 32 years ago. These awards of the Collector Land Acquisition PWD, Jammu have never been challenged by any interested persons nor any one amongst the petitioners or respondents in the main OWP No. 34/1999. 2. These awards have attained finality 45 years and 32 years ago. These awards of the Collector Land Acquisition PWD, Jammu have never been challenged by any interested persons nor any one amongst the petitioners or respondents in the main OWP No. 34/1999. 2. That all those erstwhile owners or lawful allottees of acquired land have accepted the land compensation and, compensation of the then existing structures from the Collector Land Acquisition PWD, Jammu. The State Land coming under Acquisition under above mentioned awards of the Collector Land Acquisition PWD, Jammu Rupees 3000/- per kanal was sanctioned by the Govt, vide Govt. Order No. 785-UD of 1981, dated 16.10.1981. 3. That the possession of acquired land was handed over to the Jammu Development Authority, by the Collector Land Acquisition PWD, Jammu on 16.07.1976. 4. That real allottees/occupants of Khasra No. 1, 17 & 18 of Village Channi Rama namely Chuga, Sat Pal & Passandu, had recorded their statements before Tehsildar during acquisition proceedings that they should be given compensation and they have no objection about Acquisition. These occupants were respondents raised no question about their statements recorded during acquisition proceedings or thereafter and received awarded compensation. 5. That Jan Mohd. who fraudulently gifted away his so called land to Shiv Shakti Sain Sat Guru though (void) gift deed dated 16.03.1998 after attaining finality of the award of the Collector who had filed a petition to the Collector Land Acquisition PWD, Jammu u/s. 18 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of compensation and its apportionment. The Collector Land Acquisition PWD, Jammu after hearing the matter for long six months had dismissed his petition vide order passed on file No. LA/11, dated 25.10.1990. 6. That in view of the above mentioned authentic record and documents the petitioner (Shiv Shakti Jammu) has absolutely no right, no claim and no case against the State and Jammu Development Authority to claim any compensation rather they deserve to be burdened with costs throughout Rupees five lakhs for involving JDA into false and frivolous litigation. 7. 6. That in view of the above mentioned authentic record and documents the petitioner (Shiv Shakti Jammu) has absolutely no right, no claim and no case against the State and Jammu Development Authority to claim any compensation rather they deserve to be burdened with costs throughout Rupees five lakhs for involving JDA into false and frivolous litigation. 7. That the petitioner (Shiv Shakti Sain) Sat Guru has specifically admitted in para 12 & 13 of their written arguments that it (i.e. petitioner) has acquired rights in Khasra No. 1, 17 & 18 of village Channi Rama by virtue of Gift Deed, relinquishment deeds dated 06.09.1998, 12.08.1998 or 16.12.1993 which land had since been acquired, final awards passed and possession delivered to JDA. So all such deeds and documents were null and void ab-initio. 8. That the Shiv Shakti Trust also failed in the other litigation and suit instituted in the Court of Sub Registrar Munsiff, Jammu titled Shiv Shakti Sat Guru v. Smt. Phoola Kumari Razdan and others as per order of said Court order dated 13.05.1995. Decision 21. I have gone through the memorandum of revision petitioner, the records of the case, the judgments and orders of various authorities and courts including that of our Honorable High Court, have gone through the written arguments and supplementary written arguments filed by the counsel for the parties and have also heard their verbal submissions at length. 22. Case has a checkered history at its back. Bereft of unnecessary details, the summary of the facts and chronological events of case are as under:- Land measuring 118 Kanals and 3 Marias under Khasra No. 1, 17 and 18 situated at Channi Rama was originally owned by one Kapoor Singh and others as owners who after the coming into force of Big Landed Estate Abolition Act, 2007 did not select the same in their claim under the Act. 23. The land was under tenancy of Kanshi Ram as occupancy tenant and under the cultivating possession of Nasher Din Gujjar as a tenant who had to leave the state due to communal turmoil of 1947. 24. Since the occupancy tenant Kanshi Ram also did not select the same in the claim, so the land was escheated to the state under Big Landed Estate Abolition Act as per mutation No. 121 attested by Tehsildar. 25. 24. Since the occupancy tenant Kanshi Ram also did not select the same in the claim, so the land was escheated to the state under Big Landed Estate Abolition Act as per mutation No. 121 attested by Tehsildar. 25. Nasher Din is said to have been killed while on his run due to turmoil in the state and his son Jan Mohd. who had also migrated returned to the state and thereafter challenged the said mutation in revision before Financial Commissioner on the ground that the mutation had been attested in his absence. He was not heard at the time of the order of escheating of his land to the state and the revisional court of Financial Commissioner as per order dated 08.07.1969 set aside the mutation No. 121 deciding that in the case Jan Mohd. was proved to be a state subject entitled to ownership of the land, the same should be mutated in his favour. 26. The said order was challenged before Honorable Revenue Minister who after hearing the parties vide order dated 23.04.1977 set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner and restored the order of Tehsildar passed in Mutation No. 121. 27. Jan Mohd. challenged the same before Honorable High Court in a writ petition but his writ petition was dismissed on 06.12.1971. 28. He challenged the same in LPA before Honorable High Court which as per order dated 23.05.1973 set aside the order of Revenue Minister restoring the order of Financial Commissioner. 29. Financial Commissioner as per decision dated 27.08.1975 set aside the order of the Mutation No. 121 attested by Tehsildar directed attestation of fresh mutation while ordering remand of the case and the Tehsildar attested fresh mutation No. 477 in favour of Jan Mohd. conferring ownership rights in him with respect to land measuring 78 Kanals and 18 Marias i.e. 32 Kanals and 06 Marias under Khasra No. 17 and 46 Kanals & 12 Marias under Khasra No. 18. 30. The said mutation was challenged before Collector Agrarian Reforms by Sat Pal & Ors. in appeal and as per the order of the Collector dated 07.04.1985 land measuring 36 Kanals & 6 Marias under Khasra Nos. 17 & 18 were mutated in favour of Sat Pal and 42 Kanals 12 Marias of Khasra No. 18 in favour of Jan Mohd. 31. in appeal and as per the order of the Collector dated 07.04.1985 land measuring 36 Kanals & 6 Marias under Khasra Nos. 17 & 18 were mutated in favour of Sat Pal and 42 Kanals 12 Marias of Khasra No. 18 in favour of Jan Mohd. 31. Jammu Development Authority, the respondent herein challenged the order of Collector Assistant Commissioner before Financial Commissioner with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms J & K. 32. Meanwhile as per gift deeds made by Faquir Chand, Om Prakash and Jan Mohd., Mahinder Lal, the land was transferred by them in favour of Shiv Shakti temple by duly executed and registered gift and relinquishment deeds for Convenience of Pilgrims. 33. Financial Commissioner vide her order dated 16.03.1999 set aside the order dated 07.04.1989 and restored mutation No. 121. 34. The petitioner Shiv Shakti challenged the said order before Special Tribunal which also dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 11.08.1999 on the ground that the Tribunal cannot go into facts . 35. The order of the Tribunal dated 11.08.1999 was challenged by the petitioner before Honorable High Court in writ petition No. 934/999 and vide order dated 24.11.2000 the Single Bench of the Honorable High Court allowed the appeal directing the case to be remanded for consideration to this court as under: "I am of the opinion...........................the Tribunal has not gone into the merits of controversy, this petition is disposed of with a direction that Special Tribunal would re-examine the entire matter and pass a fresh order after examining not only the legal position but also the factual position. The decision of this court determining the rights of Jan Mohd. would be given due consideration. It may also be noted that so far as Jammu Development Authority is concerned, it has merely to pay compensation to the existing owners. The dispute which is going to be decided by the Tribunal would ultimately lead to disbursement of compensation to the persons entitled to the same disposed off accordingly". 36. That is how the case has come in revision before the Tribunal. 37. So, in view of the mandate of the direction of the Honorable High Court, this court has to re-appreciate the merits of controversy afresh on facts as to whom the disputed land belonged to? whether the same belonged to Jan Mohd. 36. That is how the case has come in revision before the Tribunal. 37. So, in view of the mandate of the direction of the Honorable High Court, this court has to re-appreciate the merits of controversy afresh on facts as to whom the disputed land belonged to? whether the same belonged to Jan Mohd. in whose favour the mutation No. 477 conferring rights in favour of Jan Mohd. attested was set aside or rightly escheated in favour of the state as per mutation No. 121 which was restored by Financial Commissioner as per the order impugned and in the event of the land having been acquired whether compensation has been paid to the person entitled to the same and if not who is entitled to the disbursement of compensation and to what extent? 38. While the petitioner's contentions are that the land belongs to Jan Mohd. who transferred his rights in land through gift deed and relinquishment deed in favour of the petitioner. His rights with respect to the land in question were illegally escheated and mutated in favour of the state. Jan Mohd. had given power of attorney also to the petitioners and the land belonged to him which had not been duly acquired by the state. He has not been given any opportunity at the time of attestation of mutation No. 121. 39. His rights have remained un-adjudicated and since Shiv Shakti Temple has stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile occupancy tenant Jan Mohd., the land which has been illegally taken over by the state/JDA with respect to the encroachment of which a number of contempt application were filed before this Court and this court also directed observance of status quo, the order of covering of land by Jammu Development Authority when none of the survey Nos. 1, 17, 18 have been acquired by Jammu Development Authority, the land should be restored to them or the same should be directed to be acquired afresh at the prevailing market rate and compensation paid to them. 40. The respondents counsel on the other hand has submitted that the land stood rightly escheated to the state as per Mutation No. 121 and Jan Mohd. was having knowledge of the escheating of land to the state. He remained silent and challenged the mutation after a decade after the period of limitation. 40. The respondents counsel on the other hand has submitted that the land stood rightly escheated to the state as per Mutation No. 121 and Jan Mohd. was having knowledge of the escheating of land to the state. He remained silent and challenged the mutation after a decade after the period of limitation. The owners have deposed in favour of the Jammu Development Authority and had no objection to the acquisition of land. The whole land stood acquired by Housing Board and Jammu Development Authority in the year 1969. The land had neither been selected by the owners nor by the occupancy tenants including Jan Mohd. who could not hold the land in excess of ceiling imposed by law. That is why the land was duly escheated in favour of the state. The Assistant Commissioner Collector had no jurisdiction to change the entries and his order is as such illegal. 41. Jan Mohd. could not be conferred with any right with respect to the land which had already been escheated in favour of the state and acquired by Jammu Development Authority and Jammu Development Authority had acquired the same under which also paid the compensation to the allottees of the land. The petitioner was not having any right over the same as Jan Mohd. was himself having no right who could not transfer anything more than what he himself had and since he was having no right, the transfer gift deeds and relinquishment deeds made by him are illegal having no force under law as having been executed when Jan Mohd. was not having any title or ownership of the land at all. 42. So, no right could be transferred in favour of the Shiv Shakti Trust sole trustee Tirath Kumar who is filing frivolous litigation against Jammu Development Authority claiming the rights in the land which had since been acquired by the state and after acquisition by Jammu Development Authority, the same has been converted into a park. 43. It is also contended by the respondent Jammu Development Authority that the petitioner had challenged the award under Land Acquisition Act but his application was dismissed by the Collector and the petitioner was not having any legal right to challenge the mutation before this court when he had already lost the legal battle. 44. 43. It is also contended by the respondent Jammu Development Authority that the petitioner had challenged the award under Land Acquisition Act but his application was dismissed by the Collector and the petitioner was not having any legal right to challenge the mutation before this court when he had already lost the legal battle. 44. Besides all the factual and legal aspects have been dealt and taken due care of by the Financial Commissioner in the order impugned and this decision throws light on the whole case and the court of Financial Commissioner has finally held that the claim of the petitioner is not genuine and dismissed his case. As such the revision petition should be dismissed with heavy costs as the petitioner has unnecessarily wasted the precious time of the courts and engaged Jammu Development Authority in a false and frivolous litigation. 45. So far as the jurisdiction of this court is concerned, this court while discharging the statutory duty as quasi judicial authority is also bound by the decision of the Honorable High Court which has directed this court to re-examine the case afresh on not only legal but also factual aspects with a direction to decide the entitlement of compensation particularly with regard to the rights of Jan Mohd. 46. So far as factual aspects of the case are concerned, Nasher Din is shown to be the tenant of the land measuring 78 kanals of land and as per the entries on mutation part record on which even order of mutation No. 121 is shown to have been passed wherein he is recorded as tenant at will of the land under occupancy of Kashi Ram. It is not disputed that the Jan Mohd. was the son of Nasher Din who was the tenant of the land in question who migrated to Pakistan due to turmoil in the state and the mutation No. 121 was attested in his absence and his father Nasher Din while on his turn was killed in the state while he returned to the state thereafter. 47. That said Jan Mohd. was not heard at all by the Special Tehsildar who attested the mutation in his absence escheating his land to the state. 48. As per the revenue records the land was shown in cultivating possession of Jan Mohd. but since in the year 2004, communal riots took place, Jan Mohd. 47. That said Jan Mohd. was not heard at all by the Special Tehsildar who attested the mutation in his absence escheating his land to the state. 48. As per the revenue records the land was shown in cultivating possession of Jan Mohd. but since in the year 2004, communal riots took place, Jan Mohd. had to abandon the land in the year 2004 and abandonment of the land was beyond his volition. 49. It was in this context that the mutation No. 121 was set aside in appeal where in Financial Commissioner ordered the attestation of fresh mutation in case Jan Mohd. was the state subject and land was under his ownership. 50. After proper enquiry the special Tehsildar attested mutation No. 477 in favour of Jan Mohd. in pursuance of the order passed by Financial Commissioner dated 08.07.1969. 51. This mutation order was challenged by Sat Pal & Ors. before the Collector. 52. It be worthwhile to mention here that Jammu Development Authority has not challenged this order in appeal filed before the Collector which held Jan Mohd. to be the owner of 42 Kanals and Sat Pal to be the owner of the land of 37 kanals. So far as the order impugned is concerned, this order does not reflect anywhere that the authority concerned had considered the order of her predecessor wherein it was decided that while attestation of mutation the fact of Nasher Din having migrated to Pak due to disturbance his rights as the owner of the land were not considered or the land could not have escheated to the state unless the rights of Nasher Din were taken care of or his rights with respect to land were considered, more to say observations and the directions given by Financial Commissioner in his order dated 08.07.1969 have not been duly considered by the Court below while passing the order impugned. Nowhere, the rights of Jan Mohd. whose father was killed in turmoil of 1947 were determined and disposed off. 53. It may be mentioned that the Holocaust of 1947 cannot be forgotten. The ordeal faced by the people belonging to the two communities sends shrilling and shocking waves across the spine and in this state the persons belonging to a particular community had to migrate who had abandoned their movable and immovable property to save their lives. 53. It may be mentioned that the Holocaust of 1947 cannot be forgotten. The ordeal faced by the people belonging to the two communities sends shrilling and shocking waves across the spine and in this state the persons belonging to a particular community had to migrate who had abandoned their movable and immovable property to save their lives. This was one of the worst human tragedy of mankind and there cannot be any worse disaster than the one faced by the people of the particular community of the state during that time who could have never been expected to be physically present and cultivate the land when their own existence and the existence of their families was at stake. Any person who returned to the state, therefore, deserved to be rehabilitated by restoring the land to him and further facilities and guarantees were provided by the state to displaced population to lend assurance to them to prevent further migration of effected population from the crown state of secular country and no limitation should come in the way of these persons who under all circumstances deserved to be rehabilitated. 54. As such Jan Mohd. could not be denied the rights which he had over the land at the time he migrated. When it is not denied that on his run his father Nasher Din was not killed and his son Jan Mohd. wanted to enforce his right with respect to his property, in this background of these facts and circumstances his right of Restoration of land abandoned by him during the turmoil under the circumstances beyond his control cannot be denied which deserved to be restored to him come what may. 55. The court below has not taken this aspect of the matter into consideration. 56. While passing the order the court below has made the mention of revenue entries in favour of Jan Mohd. pertaining to Girdawari and Jamabandi records where Jan Mohd. has been recorded as tenant of the land but his tenancy rights have not been discussed nor the consequent effect of the entries of revenue record reflecting his tenancy decided. 57. The court below has also failed to consider the validity of the order dated 08.07.1969 passed by Financial Commissioner which order was upheld by the D.B. of Honorable High Court. 58. 57. The court below has also failed to consider the validity of the order dated 08.07.1969 passed by Financial Commissioner which order was upheld by the D.B. of Honorable High Court. 58. In this factual background there was no justification for the court below to order restoration of mutation order No. 121 which was erroneous in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside. 59. It is true that under Big Landed Estate Abolition Act the rights of the owners or occupancy tenants who failed to select the land or the land was found in excess of the ceiling area prescribed by the Act was liable to be escheated to the state and in the instant case also the owners or occupancy tenants did not select the same but no order of escheating the land could be passed against the person who, even if, was recorded as tenant at will in the revenue record without giving him opportunity of being heard only after which his rights could be considered and disposed off. 60. The court below while hearing the appeal against the order of Assistant Commissioner has based most of his decision on the report of the patwari purportedly on the basis of enquiry conducted by him and on the statements of some of the allottees who seem to have made the statement before patwari. When the land was given by Kanshi Ram to Jan Mohd. who is recorded as non occupancy tenant and who had migrated to pak due to turmoil, the finding of the court of Tehsildar without hearing him, in his absence, that land was in the occupation of occupancy tenant could not be said to be arrived, based upon facts. The report of patwari which mentions that girdawari record was mutilated for the period from 2009 to 1957 or the same was in bad shape could not lead to an adverse presumption against Jan Mohd. The court below on the one hand gives credence to the report of patwari but at the same time it has observed that khasra girdawari entries from 2009 to 1957 are not authentic and reliable as the register of khasra girdawari was found unserviceable and set aside the decision of correction of record of 2007 by ACR holding that he was having no jurisdiction to do so. It be mentioned that in case the register was unserviceable or girdawari was mutilated then the option left with the ACR was enquiry on spot after verifying the position but his finding as per verbal enquiry has been brandished as erroneous and held to be illegal which should not have been done. With regard to the misplacing of original file containing relevant record the court below passed the order presuming that there was no material in support of the rights of Jan Mohd. who passed the order impugned construing the land to be the state land and this finding, in view of the above material and entries reflecting the occupation of land as tenancy of Jan Mohd., are erroneous and liable to be set aside. 61. More-over the admissions of other co owners who gave the statements, before patwari, their statements could not bind Jan Mohd. 62. The respondents have contended that as per the report of the Patwari the land under dispute is the state land. The same cannot brush aside the findings of Collector Assistant Commissioner who has in his order held the land under dispute to be belonging to Jan Mohd. the statements made by Sat Pal, Passandu and Chuga that the land belongs to the state cannot hold good for the rights which Jan Mohd. was having with respect to 78 kanals held to be in his occupation as per the order of attestation of mutation No. 477 which was set aside. 63. Respondents counsel has also argued that as per the report of Patwari the land under Khasra No. 1, 17, 18 of Channi Rama is recorded in occupation of changa. Since Girdawari record from Kharief 2009 to Kharief 1957 was mutilated and in 1958 Rahi Rohlu S/o. Kanshi was to recorded while Rabi 1959 Rohlu S/o. Lachhu and Sat Pal were recorded as non-occupancy tenants, but this report cannot again overturn the findings of special Tehsildar and Collector ACR whose findings reflect the rights of Nasher Din father of Jan Mohd. who was killed when he returned to the state. 64. Now, the question arises as to the rights of the owners/Jan Mohd. and transferee petitioner with respect to the land which has been occupied by Jammu Development Authority and converted into a park. 65. Petitioners contention is that land belonged to Jan Mohd. same was not acquired by Jammu Development Authority. 64. Now, the question arises as to the rights of the owners/Jan Mohd. and transferee petitioner with respect to the land which has been occupied by Jammu Development Authority and converted into a park. 65. Petitioners contention is that land belonged to Jan Mohd. same was not acquired by Jammu Development Authority. Jammu Development Authority forcibly occupied the same and against Jammu Development Authority respondent, a number of contempt petitions were filed during the pendency of the revision petition. 66. Mr. O.P. Thakur counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the land was only forcibly occupied by the respondents with respect to which no acquisition proceedings under law were taken, so the land should be restored to the petitioner or in alternative the respondent should be directed to acquire the same under law by issuing fresh notification in which he shall also have right to object and if the land is acquired, compensation at the prevailing market value be given to the petitioner in whose favour the land has transferred by way of gift deeds and the relinquishment deed. 67. Mr. A.G. Sheikh standing counsel for JDA on the other hand has submitted that the land stood acquired by Housing Board and Jammu Development Authority in 1969. The compensation was assessed as per the award passed in 1971 and 1984 with respect to 127 Kanals and 12 Marias & 231 Kanals and 1 Maria which included the land in question and the compensation after assessment was paid to the allottees of the state land as per the award. 68. He has further submitted that Jan Mohd. was having no right whose so called attorney and the gift deeds or relinquishment deeds are nullity in the eyes of law which cannot confer any right on the petitioner Shiv Shakti which is run by sole Trustee Tirath Kumar who wants to make a fortune out of the frivolous litigation by brushing aside all cannons of law. He has submitted that Jan Mohd. whose entry was reflected as non occupancy tenant was not having any right under law and assuming for a while that Jan Mohd. He has submitted that Jan Mohd. whose entry was reflected as non occupancy tenant was not having any right under law and assuming for a while that Jan Mohd. was having any right on the land but since the court below has held that the land which was in excess of the ceiling area, so the land was legally escheated in favour of the state and no rights could be conferred on the erstwhile owners Kapoor Singh who did not select it nor the occupancy tenants or Jan Mohd. who had abandoned the land. 69. So far as the record of the case is concerned. It shows that the land had been notified under S4 of Land Acquisition Act and the survey Nos. in question in 1, 17, 18 were also acquired by the government. 70. This land is shown to have been acquired as the state land and as per the aforementioned discussion the land measuring 78 Kanals is proved to be belonging to Jan Mohd. and Sat Pal etc. so the land once acquired 1969-70 no fresh acquisition of the same can take place after almost five decades. 71. In a non reportable Judgment of Civil Appeal No. 3887 of 2017 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25741/2014 titled Ram Singh & Ors., the Apex Court has held that once the land was notified under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990 vide notification No. LA/504-11, dated 17.07.1975 which was followed by the subsequent proceedings under S. 5, 6, 9, 9A 12 showing statement of compensation paid as per order issued on 27.05.1984 with respect to the local area of Channi Rama, no fresh proceedings under the Act can be ordered with respect to adjoining land if the possession of the same has been taken nor any writ of prohibition can be issued against Jammu Development Authority for an order to restrain them from interring With the said land. If the compensation has been determined and the petitioners object to the same, that remedy can be only by way of reference for determination of compensation and not by any separate proceeding when almost three decades have already elapsed since the issuance of notification under section-4. 72. If the compensation has been determined and the petitioners object to the same, that remedy can be only by way of reference for determination of compensation and not by any separate proceeding when almost three decades have already elapsed since the issuance of notification under section-4. 72. So, in the instant case also the land is shown to have been acquired in 1971 four and a half decades ago and the award passed in the year 1984, area is the same i.e., Channi Rama so there is no reason as to why the same ratio decidendi should not apply in the case here. 73. The land measuring 78 kanals is shown to be belonging to Jan Mohd. He is shown to have surrendered his rights in favour of petitioner Trust through gift and relinquishment deed. Counsel for JDA has objected to the admissibility of gift and relinquishment deeds challenging their legal validity as having been executed after the land was acquired by the state and Jan Mohd. had no ownership or possession at all but assuming that the all the conveyance deeds are null and void still it is apparent that Jan Mohd. has surrendered his rights in favour of none but Shiv Shakti petitioner and through the attorney also authorised them to do the needful, so for the collateral purposes also the rights of the petitioner cannot be clouded by invalidity of these documents. 74. Thus, it is proved that in view of the above discussion land belonged to Jan Mohd. and it was his land which was acquired by construing the same as state land and the same having been acquired, its possession taken and the same having been converted to a public park by JDA, for which compensation was assessed and also paid to the allottees though not to Jan Mohd. though erroneously, still, no fresh acquisition can be ordered. 75. That is why it is in this context that the judgment or D.B. directing this Court to re-examine the facts and see to the entitlement of compensation of land payable by JDA has to be interpreted which on the principle of doctrine of ejusdem generis cannot be said to exclude the determination of quantum of compensation also to the petitioners successors in interest of Jan Mohd. 76. 76. To reproduce the relevant extract of the order for laying emphasis, the same read as under; "It may also be noted that so far as JDA is concerned it has merely to pay compensation to the erstwhile owners. The dispute which is going to be decided by the Tribunal would ultimately lead to disbursement of compensation to the persons entitled to same______ disposed of accordingly". 77. Thus as per this order the entitlement of compensation paid or pay able by JDA only is to be decided. 78. So, contentions of the counsel for the petitioners that land has not at all been acquired or fresh direction should be given to acquire the same or compensation should be paid at the prevailing market rate are totally not tenable and are hereby struck down as unsustainable in the eyes of law. To hold otherwise will lead to re-opening Pandora box of all the cases of awards passed or compensation disbursed several decades before on the findings of Courts with regard to the entitlement of the persons who might not have figured as owners at the time of acquisition of land and established their right only subsequent thereafter i.e. decades after the acquisition of the land. The same will lead to overthrowing of all the proceedings and awards and lead to an uprising which is not legally permissible. 79. Thus, the land measuring 78 kanals acquired as state land is established to be belonging to Jan Mohd. who is not shown to be possessing the same in excess of ceiling permissible limits under law. As had it been so, the same would itself have been sufficient to oust him from claiming the rights of land which was very genuinely liable to be escheated in favour of state under BLEA Act. So far as the awards are concerned the petitioner is not shown to have challenged the same as no annexure showing their claim having been dismissed by Collector as per Annexure 7 as contended by the respondent is with the record. 80. So the petitioner, the successor in interest of Jan Mohd. is held entitled to the compensation. 81. It may also be noted that so far as Jammu Development Authority is concerned, it has merely to pay compensation to the erstwhile owners. 80. So the petitioner, the successor in interest of Jan Mohd. is held entitled to the compensation. 81. It may also be noted that so far as Jammu Development Authority is concerned, it has merely to pay compensation to the erstwhile owners. The dispute which is going to be decided by the tribunal would ultimately lead to disbursement of compensation to the persons entitled to the same as per the direction of the Honorable High Court. 82. As per the conclusion inferred from the above findings Jan Mohd. is proved to be the owner of the land measuring 78 kanals of land which has been acquired by JDA, the possession of the same is taken in the year 1971 and the award been passed in the year 1984. The rate of compensation in the year 1971 was Rs. 3000 per kanal which has been paid to some of the owners/private persons. The award having been made in the year 1984 and no compensation having been paid to the petitioner successor in interest of Jan Mohd. 83. Since, the land has been acquired for more than almost 4 and half decades ago petitioners' predecessors in interest have been deprived of the compensation from 1971 though petitioner Shiv Shakti has, thereafter, stepped into shoes of Jan Mohd. who spent maximum years before the successors of his interest in the legal battle taking 45 years. In view of the increase in value of the land, prices and inflation keeping in view the considerations which are also relevant for passing of the award, the petitioner Shiv Shakti herein is held entitled to the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 3000 per kanal i.e. at the same the then prevailing market value at par with the then similarly situated land holders in consonance with the principles of equality, with 15% solatium and 6% compound interest in the first year of acquisition and 10% of compound interest in the subsequent years till the year of passing of award i.e. 1984 which compound interest is justified and genuine under the aforementioned circumstances, where after the petitioner is entitled to simple interest of Rs. 10 % till the realisation of the amount, which is calculated as per follows:- Rs. 3000 x 78 (kanals) = Rs. 10 % till the realisation of the amount, which is calculated as per follows:- Rs. 3000 x 78 (kanals) = Rs. 2,24,000 plus 15% solatium = 2,57,600 Amount for the first year of 1971 as per formula Principal (1+RI/100) time = 2,57,600 (1+10/100) 1 = 2,73,056 Amount for 13 years @ 10% compound interest Principal = 2,73,056 R.I. = 10% Time =13 years Amount as per formula Principal (1+RI/100) time = 2,73,056 (1+10/100) 33 = 9,42,663 Amount @ 10% SI for 33 years + Principal = 9,42,663 x 10 x 33/100 + 942663 = Rs. 40,53,450 the amount which the petitioner is held entitled to receive from the respondent which be paid within 6 months from the date of this order in default of which the petitioner be paid the sum due along with 10% interest till realisation of the amount. 84. Thus, the collector may calculate the compensation accordingly in case the parties do not agree on the mathematical calculations as given above. The Revision stands disposed of. Disposed off.