JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant writ petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs in the nature of:- (i) “WRIT OF CERTIORARI:-Allow the petition with a prayer to quash the Communication/Order No. DCQ/SQ/2017/2120 dated 30th March, 2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 and forwarded to the respondent No. 3, by virtue of which the respondent No. 3 is directed to implement the only first para of the judgment passed by the learned Financial Commissioner Revenue, J&K though there is nowhere mentioned in the judgment to implement the only first para of the judgment. The Communication /order passed by the respondent No. 2 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional passed without application of mind, same deserves to be set aside. (ii) WRIT OF MANDAMUS:- To command the official respondents to ensure that the ownership rights of the suit property be not transferred/changed in favour of the un-authorized persons/occupants and no permission of sale be processed regarding the suit property, if any, sale document is presented by the illegal and unauthorized occupants and also to ensure that the unauthorized occupants may not raise any construction on any portion of the suit property and the respondent No. 1 be directed to proceed against the illegal and unauthorized occupants under Sections 4, 5 and 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrants Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales), Act, 1997. (iii) WRIT OF PROHIBITION:- To restrain the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to change the nature of the land measuring 03 Kanal and 15 Marlas falling under Survey No. 350 Min, and 1147/1 Min along with 2 storied damaged house and 3 shops constructed on the portion of land opposite J&K Bank situated at Qasba Laar Ganderbal (herein after called Suit Property).” 2. In the petition, it has been stated that the Communication/order impugned passed by the respondent No. 2 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The same has been passed without application of mind and the same deserves to be set aside. The omission and commission, which are being committed by the respondents, will deprive the petitioners from their right of property, so the petitioners left with no option except to approach the Hon’ble Court by way of the instant writ petition. That respondent has no authority to pass this communication as matter was remanded to District Magistrate. 3. The omission and commission, which are being committed by the respondents, will deprive the petitioners from their right of property, so the petitioners left with no option except to approach the Hon’ble Court by way of the instant writ petition. That respondent has no authority to pass this communication as matter was remanded to District Magistrate. 3. Respondents 5 and 6, who were arrayed as respondents, have filed their objection, whereas other respondents have not filed objections. 4. I have gone through the pleadings, objections and also considered the rival contentions. For deciding the controversy, the judgment (Annexure-D) dated 02.12.2014, passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K, is reproduced as under:- “1. The present controversy before this Court concerns land measuring 02 Kanals and 15 Marlas falling under Khasra No. 350 (Min) at the above noted location in District Ganderbal. This land comprising 09 shares was in the ownership of Nanda Ram S/o Suraj Ram (Four shares), Som Nath and Triloki Nath, both sons of Neel Kanth Ram (Four Shares) and one share as unaffected. As per girdawari of 1971, the same was in possession of Prem Nath, Shamboo Nathand Radha Krishan in equal shares as co-sharers (Hissedaran), but later in the share holding of Som Nath and Triloki Nath only. Subsequently, on 07th January, 1989, the said land was vested in the State and the respondents herein were declared as prospective owners by virtue of Mutation No. 499. 2. Aggrieved, the appellants herein filed an appeal before this Court, challenging the said mutation on various grounds. Earlier, on 05th September, 2011, this Court felt it just and proper to transfer the case to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Ganderbal for disposal under law. However, the appellants herein moved this Court to transfer the same to Jammu on the ground that both the parties reside in Jammu. Accordingly, the case was withdrawn from the Court below and transferred to this Court for disposal. 3. This Court has gone through the case file, the written submissions filed by both the parties as well as the connected revenue record. Accordingly, the case was withdrawn from the Court below and transferred to this Court for disposal. 3. This Court has gone through the case file, the written submissions filed by both the parties as well as the connected revenue record. Firstly, it is observed that Shamboo Nath, the father of respondents had been in continuous cultivating possession of this land from 1960 until his death in the year 1989, as claimed by the respondents, meaning thereby that he was in possession of the land also on the determinant date, i.e., Kharif, 1971. Accordingly, the impugned mutation had to be attested in his favour, declaring him as a Prospective Owner. However, Rule 12 (2) (b) (iv) of the Agrarian Reforms Rules lays down that if the tiller dies on or after 01st May, 1973 and the mutation of succession relating to him has not been attested, the mutation under this rule shall direct that the deceased tiller be entered as Prospective Owner and thereafter, separate mutation shall be written up and attested in accordance with the proviso to Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 28 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. This procedure, which has been duly established by law has not been complied with in the instant case. 4. Secondly, if the land was in possession of the father of the respondents herein as has also been shown in Column No. 4 of the impugned Mutation No. 499, there was no need of invoking the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, as he was shown as a shareholder amongst others. After his death, simple mutation was required to be attested to devolve his inheritance in favour of his legal heirs in the ordinary course of law. 5. Thirdly, Triloki Nath, father/husband of the appellants herein has been entered in the Column No. 9 of the impugned Mutation No. 499, showing him as a shareholder of the land under deliberation. In all circumstances, to uphold the principles of natural justice, he was required to be heard prior to the attestation of the impugned Mutation. The same has apparently not been done in the instant case. 6. Fourthly, the order passed on mutation attested under Section 8 of the said Act is without any date. It is not clear as to on which date it was entered by the Patwari concerned or attested by the attested authority. The same has apparently not been done in the instant case. 6. Fourthly, the order passed on mutation attested under Section 8 of the said Act is without any date. It is not clear as to on which date it was entered by the Patwari concerned or attested by the attested authority. Amazingly, this mutation has been entered in the revenue record in Rabi, 1988, which shows that it was attested prior to the attestation of the mutation under Section 4, which is illogical. Moreover, the impugned Mutation has been incorporated in the revenue record against Kharif, 1985. All these developments have made the case a puzzle. 7. Fifthly, an examination of the Mutation No. 507 attested under Section 8 of the said Act shows that there are two orders passed on it, conferring ownership rights on different persons amongst the respondents herein. If at all, the attesting officer intended to do this, he was required to have passed a single order regarding the same. 8. Sixthly, 02 Marlas of the land disputed has been shown as Gair Mumkin Makan while as 03 Marlas as appurlenant to the same. The provisions of Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 do not apply to such lands. There is separate procedure to deal with such type of lands under the said Act. 9. Seventhly, Rule 21 of the Standing Order 23-A lays down that the Filed Qanungo should see as to whether the Surat Sabiq is correct as per the Jamabandi. He must compare and attest by personal examination of the papers concerned that every entry made by the Patwari in the Parat Patwar and the Parat Sarkar is correct. He must also note briefly in the Part Sarkar that he has done so with date below his report with his signatures on both the parats. But the same has also not been done in the impugned Mutation as well as in the other Mutation. 10. Finally, a perusal of the certified copy of the impugned Mutation No. 499 indicates that “Signed Tehsildar” in the impugned Mutation appears to have been written sometime later after the issuance of the said copy. This aspect is also required to be examined to confirm that this mutation has actually been attested by an authorized revenue officer. 11. 10. Finally, a perusal of the certified copy of the impugned Mutation No. 499 indicates that “Signed Tehsildar” in the impugned Mutation appears to have been written sometime later after the issuance of the said copy. This aspect is also required to be examined to confirm that this mutation has actually been attested by an authorized revenue officer. 11. For the reasons discussed above and upon careful reflection, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned and the appeal petition is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned Mutation No. 499 along with Mutation No. 507 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Ganderbal for De-novo Inquiry in the matter and for taking appropriate further necessary action under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrants Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, as required. No costs. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated. The case file be relegated to records after due completion.” 5. The impugned communication passed by respondent no.2 reads as under:- “Government of Jammu and Kashmir OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GANDERBAL (Mini Secretariat Complex, Duderhama) The Tehsildar, Lar No:-DCQ/SQ/2017/2120 dated 30th March, 2017 Dated:-30.03.2017 Subject:- Implementation of order dated 02nd December, 2014 in the case titled Sachin Koul (Applicant/Appellant) Vs. Jai Krishan Koul and others (Non-applicant/Respondents). Sir, Kindly refer to your Communication no. 1052/OQ/TL dated 23rd March, 2017 regarding subject cited above. In this connection, you are directed to implement the said order as per para first of judgment order passed by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K passed in above titled case and submit compliance report to this office within one week positively. Yours faithfully, Syed Shahnawaz Bukhari (KAS) Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal.” 6. Bare perusal of concluding para of order of learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K , it evident that Mutation No. 499 along with Mutation No. 507 were set aside and matter was remanded to the District Magistrate, Ganderbal for De-novo Inquiry in the matter and for taking appropriate further necessary action under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrants Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997. 7. Judgment is the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. As per law the conclusion reached by the judge after hearing both parties on merits and expressing the same in writing is required to be treated as directive; it is subset in the set of judgment. 7. Judgment is the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. As per law the conclusion reached by the judge after hearing both parties on merits and expressing the same in writing is required to be treated as directive; it is subset in the set of judgment. Only conclusion arrived by a judge is required to be executed and not statements of facts or law given by judge on the ground of passing a direction, is required to be executed. 8. Bare perusal of Communication of respondent no.2, which has been challenged would reveals that it is not only illegal but shows non application of mind of respondent no.2. Para first is facts of case written by financial commissioner, it cannot be implemented/executed. The conclusion arrived by Financial commissioner was required to be implemented/executed. Further respondent no. 2 Additional Deputy commissioner Ganderbal, has no authority to pass this communication, because Financial Commissioner has directed Deputy commissioner Ganderbal to conduct de novo inquiry in the matter. 9. In view of what has been discussed above and without commenting on merits of the case, the impugned communication dated 30.03.2017 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner Ganderbal, whereby directing the Tehsildar to implement paragraph No.1 of the judgment dated 02.12.2014 passed by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K, is set aside. 10. This petition is, thus, disposed off accordingly.