JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of judgment and order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the J&K special Tribunal, Jammu in File No.STJ/283/1996, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the revision petition, set aside the order dated 03.02.1984 passed by the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, J&K along with order dated 26.03.1981 passed by the Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms, Jammu under Section 4 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 on Mutation No.504 regarding the land measuring 83 kanals, 18 marlas, situate at Village Hakal, Tehsil Jammu. 2. The facts-in-brief, as projected in the petition, are that one Subedar Dharam Singh, father of respondents No.1 herein, was the owner in possession of land measuring 83 kanals 18 marlas, situate at Village Hakkal, Tehsil & District Jammu. In the year 1964, a Lease Agreement in respect of the said land came to be executed on 24.06.1964 between said Subedar Dharam Singh and one Hans Raj (father of petitioners herein) son of Lala Mani Ram Mahajan on behalf of Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm. The period of lease was 20 years and the yearly rent had been fixed at Rs.1500/-. As per the said agreement, Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm through Hans Raj was held entitled to raise construction of Dairy Farm over the said land and also cultivate the said land and get all the benefits from it. As per the said agreement, the lease was to expire on 23.06.1984. 3. However, before the expiry of Lease Agreement, Tehsildar (A.R.), Jammu passed order dated 26.03.1981 on Mutation No.504 in respect of the said land, whereby he vested the land in the State under Section 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 with Hans Raj as prospective owner, thus it has given rise to a dispute between the parties to the agreement. 4. Feeling aggrieved, Subedar Dharam Singh filed an appeal, bearing No.455 of 1981-82 before the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, Jammu, who vide order dated 03.02.1984 upheld the order of Tehsildar (A.R.), Jammu. 5. Against the order of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, Subedar Dharam Singh filed a revision before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu on 09.09.1984. While allowing the revision, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.1986 held that since the property-in-question is not the land as defined in the Agrarian Reforms Act, as such the same is not applicable in the present case. 5. Against the order of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, Subedar Dharam Singh filed a revision before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu on 09.09.1984. While allowing the revision, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.1986 held that since the property-in-question is not the land as defined in the Agrarian Reforms Act, as such the same is not applicable in the present case. However, during the pendency of this litigation, Subedar Dharam Singh (Lessor) died. 6. Thus, against the order of learned Tribunal, Hans Raj, son of Lala Mani Ram Mahajan filed a writ petition, bearing No.690/1986 before a Division Bench of this Court. However, the learned Division Bench vide judgment dated 15.05.1987 dismissed the writ petition being without merit. Against the said order, Hans Raj filed Civil Appeal, bearing No.4130/1989 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide judgment dated 07.08.1996 set aside the order of Special Tribunal dated 28.06.1986 as also that of the High Court dated 15.05.1987 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to reconsider the question as to whether the land-in-question, set apart on lease for dairy farming, comes within the purview of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 or not, for the reason that the Tribunal vide its order dated 28.08.1986 had held that dairy farming is not agriculture. The Apex Court further directed the Tribunal to give judgment in detail supported by reasons. 7. Accordingly, the learned Member of the Tribunal while hearing the revision petition afresh observed that the same involves an important question of law and public interest, so the learned Member vide order dated 25.11.1997 referred the case to the learned Chairman of the Tribunal for constitution of a Full Bench of Tribunal in terms of Section 5(2) of the J&K Special Tribunal Act, 1988. 8. The Full Bench of Tribunal elaborately considered the question formulated by the Apex Court and while answering the reference vide order dated 02.01.2008 was of the opinion that the land leased out by Dharam Singh (Lessor) in favour of Hans Raj (Lessee) by virtue of Lease Deed dated 24.06.1964, measuring 83 kanals, situated in Village Hakkal, Tehsil Jammu, was let in favour of the latter for the purpose of a Dairy Farm which is outside the scope of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. 9. Meanwhile, Hans Raj (actual lessee), son of Lala Mani Ram Mahajan died. 9. Meanwhile, Hans Raj (actual lessee), son of Lala Mani Ram Mahajan died. Thus, his predecessors-in-interest questioned the opinion rendered by the Full Bench of Tribunal before this Court in OWP No.131/2008. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.05.2008 dismissed the writ petition being not maintainable on the ground that the Tribunal had yet to decide the case on merits. Against the said judgment, the predecessors-in-interest of Hans Raj filed LPA being LPAOW No.46/2008. However, the same too came to be dismissed by the LPA Bench on 30.05.2008 holding no error in the view expressed by the Single Judge. 10. Ultimately, the matter was again re-agitated before the learned Special Tribunal and the learned Tribunal vide detailed judgment and order dated 12.09.2011, while allowing the revision petition, set aside the order dated 03.02.1984 passed by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, J&K along with order dated 26.03.1981 passed by the Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms, Jammu on Mutation No.504 under Section 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, for the land measuring 83 kanals 18 marlas, situated at Village Hakkal, Tehsil Jammu. Hence, the present writ petition against the order of learned Tribunal. 11. During the pendency of present petition, petitioner No.4 came to be expired and in his place, his legal representatives came to be impleaded as party-petitioners 4(a) to 4(g) in terms of order dated 22.07.2014. Respondent No.1 also came to be expired and in his place, his legal representatives came to be impleaded as party respondents 1(i) to 1(vi) in terms of order dated 20.04.2017. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners argued that even if the Tribunal had held in favour of respondents herein, yet the Tribunal could not have passed any direction under the Agrarian Reforms Act for treating the writ petitioners herein as trespassers and directing the revenue authorities to hand over the possession to respondent No.1. It was further argued that the learned Tribunal has failed to act within the scope of reference as directed by the Apex Court vide order dated 25.11.1997. It was argued that Dairy Farm is over 2-3 kanals of land, whereas rest of the land is being used for cultivation by the petitioners herein for growing fodder and paddy. It was further argued that the learned Tribunal has failed to act within the scope of reference as directed by the Apex Court vide order dated 25.11.1997. It was argued that Dairy Farm is over 2-3 kanals of land, whereas rest of the land is being used for cultivation by the petitioners herein for growing fodder and paddy. Further, it was argued that the late father of petitioners was all along in cultivating possession of the land-in-question, more particularly in Kharief 1971, therefore, was in every sense a tiller of the land. 13. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 averring therein that the Lease Agreement clearly indicated that it was executed between Subedar Dharam Singh and Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm through Hans Raj son of Lala Mani Ram Mahajan and not for the personal cultivation of Hans Raj. It is further averred that Hans Raj was not a tiller within the meaning of the expression as defined in the Act, therefore, was not entitled to the land. It is averred that since the petitioners herein have been held not entitled to the use and occupation of the land-in-question under any provision of the Agrarian Reforms Act, as such they are liable to be evicted there from. 14. Further, it is averred that neither Hans Raj Mahajan nor his legal representatives ever paid rent or compensation for the land-in-question ever since 1964, much less after the expiry of the term stipulated in the agreement, nor Subedar Dharam Singh or his predecessors-in-interest ever received any such rent or compensation or assented to their continuing in possession of land-in-question, therefore, the provisions of Transfer of Property Act do not apply in the present case. 15. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and also perused the writ file as well as the record attached thereto. 16. Petitioners herein claim that their father, namely, Hans Raj was tilling the land-in-question, as such Tehsildar (A.R.), Jammu rightly passed order dated 26.03.1981 attesting Mutation No.504 under Section 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 in favour of their father, whereby the Tehsildar vested the land-in-question in the State declaring Hans Raj, father of petitioners herein, as prospective owner. 17. 16. Petitioners herein claim that their father, namely, Hans Raj was tilling the land-in-question, as such Tehsildar (A.R.), Jammu rightly passed order dated 26.03.1981 attesting Mutation No.504 under Section 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 in favour of their father, whereby the Tehsildar vested the land-in-question in the State declaring Hans Raj, father of petitioners herein, as prospective owner. 17. On the other hand, while controverting the stand of petitioners herein, the stand of respondents herein, i.e., predecessors-in-interest of Subedar Dharam Singh is that in the year 1964 the land-in-question was given on lease by Subedar Dharam Singh to Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm for dairy farming purposes for a period of 20 years and not for the personal cultivation of Hans Raj. Their further stand is that although Hans Raj executed and signed the Lease Deed on behalf of Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm, but that did not mean that he was given the land-in-question for his personal cultivation, as such was not a tiller within the meaning of the expression as defined in the Act. 18. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to note that The Jammu & Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Svt. 2007 (1950 A.D.) (hereinafter, for short, Abolition Act) came to be enacted and published in the extraordinary issue of the Government Gazette dated 7th Har, 2006. The Act provided for the abolition of big landed estates and their transfer to actual tillers. And, to achieve this objective, the Act provided for the abolition of such proprietors who own big landed estates and to transfer the land held by them to the actual tillers by fixing the ceiling area. The Act declared that no proprietor shall at any time hold more than 182 kanals of land in ownership. Similarly, it provided ceiling for tillers by declaring that no tiller to whom land has been transferred shall at any time hold more than 160 kanals of land in ownership rights. The rights and interests in the land exceeding the ceiling area extinguished and vested to the State. Similarly, it provided ceiling for tillers by declaring that no tiller to whom land has been transferred shall at any time hold more than 160 kanals of land in ownership rights. The rights and interests in the land exceeding the ceiling area extinguished and vested to the State. Section 2(d) of the Abolition Act defines the term “tiller” and, for deciding the present controversy, it would be relevant to reproduce same hereunder: “2(d) “tiller” means a person who tills land with his own hands, and with reference to the land held by a proprietor has, on the date of the commencement of this Act, been in cultivating possession of such land and includes a tenant who, after 1st Baisakh, 2004, has been ejected otherwise than in due course of law or has ceased to cultivate the land owing to reasons beyond his control; but does not include- (a) a trespasser ; (b) a servant who is paid in cash or kind for his services ; (c) a person who is not the actual beneficiary ; and (d) a hired labourer; and (e) words and expressions not defined in this Act shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996, the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1977.” 19. In the year 1972, The Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act 1972 came to be enacted to provide for comprehensive legislation relating to further land reforms in the state. The object of the Act was to abolish the system of the absentee landlordism, to make tillers the owners and to set a ceiling on land holding. This Act, however, instead of introducing reforms in agricultural estates gave arise to unnecessary litigations, created chaos and confusion and caused hardships to landlords as well as to the tenants and the main reason behind this was its bad drafting. This Act, however, instead of introducing reforms in agricultural estates gave arise to unnecessary litigations, created chaos and confusion and caused hardships to landlords as well as to the tenants and the main reason behind this was its bad drafting. In order to remove the defects and to review it with a view to provide for more equitable distribution and better utilization of the land suited to the circumstances of the State, The J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1972 was kept in suspension from 25th of March 1975 by means of The J&K Agrarian Reforms (Suspension of Operation) Act 1975 and a new Act was passed in 1976 known as The Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, which came to be enacted with effect from 13.07.1978 vide SRO 295 dated 01.06.1978. The purpose of the Act was to provide for transfer of land to tillers thereof subject to certain conditions and for better utilization of land in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Section 2(17) of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 defines the term “tiller”, which reads as: “2(17) "tiller" means tenant cultivating land personally and shall mean and include a person who was tiller in Kharif, 1971 or his legal heirs or his transferee in the case of any valid transfer of land made between 1st September, 1971 and 1st May, 1973, subject to the competent Revenue Officer being satisfied about the existence of a bona fide transfer to this effect.” 20. The purpose of Abolition Act was to provide for the abolition of big landed estates and their transfer to actual tillers. Section 2(d) of the Abolition Act defines “tiller” means a person who tills land with his own hands and was in cultivating possession of such land held by a proprietor. Similarly, Section 2(17) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 defines “tiller” means tenant cultivating land personally and shall mean and include a person who was tiller in Kharif, 1971. Since the definitions of tillers, as defined in the Jammu & Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Svt. 2007 (1950 A.D.) as well as in the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act 1972, are with regard to the same subject, as such they cannot be read in isolation/separately, rather both are to be read conjointly. Since the definitions of tillers, as defined in the Jammu & Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Svt. 2007 (1950 A.D.) as well as in the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act 1972, are with regard to the same subject, as such they cannot be read in isolation/separately, rather both are to be read conjointly. Thus, to qualify the term actual tiller, three ingredients had to be satisfied, i.e., (i) a person must be a tenant, (ii) he had been tilling the land, held by a proprietor, with his own hands in Kharif, 1971 and (iii) was in cultivating possession of such land. 21. Now following question arises for consideration are: i. Whether Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm was the tenant of land-in-question and had been given the said land by Subedar Dharam Singh on contract basis for dairy purposes or Hans Raj was the tenant of land-in-question? ii. Whether dairy farming comes under agriculture under the Provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act? iii. Whether Hans Raj was the actual tiller of the land-in-question and had been personally tilling some portion of the said land in Kharif, 1971 with his own hands and was in cultivating possession of such land, thus falls within the definition of tiller? If yes, how much portion out of the land-in-question was being personally cultivated by Hans Raj and how much portion was being used for dairy farm? 22. A perusal of the Lease Deed reveals that it was executed on 24.06.1964 between Subedar Dharam Singh on one side as owner of the land-in-question and Hans Raj son of Lala Mani Ram Mahajan on behalf of Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm, Jammu on the other side as a tenant, purely on contract basis for a period of 20 years in respect of the land measuring 83 kanals 18 marlas, situate at Village Hakkal, Tehsil & District Jammu and the yearly rent had been fixed at Rs.1500/-; meaning thereby the other party was Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm, which executed the deed through Hans Raj. Thus, Hans Raj did not execute the Lease Deed in his personal capacity; rather he executed the same on behalf of Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm. Therefore, as per the Lease Deed itself, the actual tenant was Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm and not Hans Raj. Thus, Hans Raj did not execute the Lease Deed in his personal capacity; rather he executed the same on behalf of Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm. Therefore, as per the Lease Deed itself, the actual tenant was Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm and not Hans Raj. Once it is clear that Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm was the actual tenant; then Hans Raj did not fall within the definition of “tiller” means tenant as defined under Section 2(17) of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. 23. Now I come to second question that as to whether dairy farming comes under agriculture under the Provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act or not? 24. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce here under Section 2(9) of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, which defines “land”: “2(9) “land” means land which was occupied, or was let, for agricultural purpose or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture in Kharif, 1971 and includes: (a) structures on such land used for purposes connected with agriculture; (b) areas covered by, or fields floating over, water; (c) forest lands and wooded wastes; and (d) trees standing on land; But does not include an orchard or site of a building or a structure within municipal area town area, notified area or village abadi or any land appurtenant to such building or structure.” 25. The term agriculture purposes has nowhere defined in the Act, however, the controversy on the question as to what would be the land for agriculture purposes has been set at rest by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, AIR 1957 SC 768 . It was held that word “agriculture” in its primary sense denotes the cultivation of the field and is restricted to cultivation of the land in the strict sense of the term, meaning thereby tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting and similar operations on the land. 26. It was held that word “agriculture” in its primary sense denotes the cultivation of the field and is restricted to cultivation of the land in the strict sense of the term, meaning thereby tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting and similar operations on the land. 26. The expression “cultivation” in its generic sense has been construed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case arising under the Bihar Lands Reforms Act, while dealing with the definition of actual possession in Gurucharan Singh vs Kamla Singh, AIR 1977 SC 5 , observing that “He who runs and reads will readily make out that what is meant is actual possession with one’s feet on the land, plough in the field and hands in the soil, although hired labour is also contemplated.” 27. It is also settled legal position that the rearing of cattle which would be classed agriculture cattle means and includes animals employed in agriculture and in purposes subservient to agriculture, including the domestic requirement of the tenant. This will cover bullocks and buffaloes used for ploughing or threshing, for the cartage of produce, for the private dairy purposes of the tenant and for the convenience of himself and his house hold. It also includes a reasonable number of animals for purposes of keeping his agricultural stock constant, but, cannot be extended to allow free grazing of animals kept as stock of trading dairy farm or bred for sale of cultivators or to butchers, or for the plying of carts or other conveyances for hire. It would also not include such cattle as are bred for sale, or hire, or are used for breeding calves for sale or for producing milk, ghee, etc. for sale. 28. In the present case since it is not disputed that the land-in-question was given to Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm for commercial purposes and not for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto, hence the same does not fall within the meaning of “land” as defined in Section 2(9) of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act. Otherwise too, as per Income Tax Act, income from dairy farming is taxable in India, whereas income from agriculture is exempted. Therefore, from this point of view also, commercial dairy farming does not come under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act. 29. Otherwise too, as per Income Tax Act, income from dairy farming is taxable in India, whereas income from agriculture is exempted. Therefore, from this point of view also, commercial dairy farming does not come under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act. 29. Now I come to the third question, i.e., whether Hans Raj was the actual tiller of the land-in-question and had been personally tilling some portion of the said land in Kharif, 1971 with his own hands and was in cultivating possession of such land, thus falls within the definition of tiller? If yes, how much portion out of the land-in-question was being personally cultivated by Hans Raj and how much portion was being used for dairy farm? 30. It is to be seen here that the land-in-question was leased out to Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm for the purposes of dairy farming. 31. Admittedly, the dominant theme of the Lease Agreement was to let the land-in-question by its owner Subedar Dharam Singh to Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm through Hans Raj for commercial dairy farming. Since cattle are dependent on an agriculture produce for its survival, as such, one of the conditions in the agreement to cultivate the land seems to be with the object of production of fodder for the cattle for such commercial dairy farming. Further, the deed was between owner Subedar Dharam Singh and tenant Rashtriya Milk Fairy Farm through Hans Raj, as such Hans Raj could not be expected to have been cultivating the land-in-question in individual or personal capacity. Also, there is a clear distinction between dairy farming as a part of agriculture and commercial dairy farming. In the case of dairy farming as a part of agriculture, the question of “determination as to the extent of the area actually put to cultivation or agriculture use” becomes relevant. However, in case of commercial dairy farming, the question of “determination as to the extent of the area actually put to cultivation or agriculture use” becomes irrelevant. Since the land was let and occupied for commercial purposes for setting up of dairy farming, therefore, the land-in-question does not fall within the meaning of land as defined in Section 2(9) of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act. 32. Since the land was let and occupied for commercial purposes for setting up of dairy farming, therefore, the land-in-question does not fall within the meaning of land as defined in Section 2(9) of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act. 32. Since the land-in-question was let and allowed to be occupied for commercial dairy farming and not for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and also that the land-in-question does not fall within the meaning of land as defined in Section 2(9) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, as such Hans Raj tilling the land-in-question personally with his own hands in Kharif 1971 does not arise at all. 33. There is another aspect of the matter, which cannot lose sight of. To understand who the actual tillers were and what their actual job was, the old Avestan term Drigu in the Gathas and Avesta, conveys the idea of “toil, hard labour, drudgery,” and refers to the oppressed farming nobility, the downtrodden tillers of the land, who were subjected to the tyranny of the despot feudal lords. 34. Kaveripatnam Siddhanatha Venkataramani was an Indian lawyer and an acclaimed writer in English. His first novel was Murugan – The Tiller, appeared in 1927 with an introduction titled “A Novel of Indian Rural Life”. His second novel was Kandan – The Patriot, appeared in 1932 with a prelude titled “A Novel of New India in the Making”. 35. During British era a general view prevailed that the British Government did not try to satisfy every section of the society. For effective governance they used only the rich people, who were the local authorities and did not bother about the poor. Therefore, the rich became richer and the poor became poorer. The poor had to live at the mercy of the rich. Therefore, the rich panniars (landlords) exploited the poor tillers of the soil. One of the post-colonial features is opposing the exploitation of the poor/rural people or the marginalized. Venkataramani deals with this concept in detail through the character of Mudaliar in one of his novels. 36. Venkataramani, through Murugan, emphasizes how important it is for the tiller to posses the land he tills: „He who tills the soil has no interest in it. He is simply hired for the day and the job, though he is kept on forever like this from one generation to another. 36. Venkataramani, through Murugan, emphasizes how important it is for the tiller to posses the land he tills: „He who tills the soil has no interest in it. He is simply hired for the day and the job, though he is kept on forever like this from one generation to another. But he who owns it, cares not to till it himself, for, he owns more than he needs for his own wants. It is a pity and an evil thing.? (Murugan 105). 37. Thus, from the above discussion, it is emphatically clear that the actual tillers were the oppressed and downtrodden poor/rural people of the marginalized society. Therefore, with a view to abolish the system of absentee landlordism and to make actual tillers the owners of such lands by fixing a ceiling on land holding, The Jammu & Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Svt. 2007 (1950 A.D.) came to be enacted. 38. Now it is to be seen here that whether Hans Raj, who, on behalf of Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm, took the land-in-question on contract basis for a lease period of 20 years in the year 1964, was the actual tiller and belonged to the oppressed and downtrodden marginalized society. 39. Admittedly, in the year 1964 the land-in-question was taken on lease on yearly rent of Rs.1500/- or, in other words, Rs.125/- per month. In 1964 the initial salary of an Orderly in the State Government service was approximately about Rs.40/- per month, which as on today is about Rs.24,000/- per month; meaning thereby the value of Rs.40/- in 1964 is about Rs.24,000/- in January, 2019, thus certainly there is 600 times appreciation in the value of rupee between the period of 1964 to January 2019. Applying the same formula, the value of Rs.1500/- in the year 1964 is rupees nine lacs as on today, and, Rs.125/- per month in 1964 comes to Rs.75,000/- per month in January 2019. Thus, how come a person who had the capacity to pay rent of Rs.125/- per month in 1964 (which comes to Rs.75,000/- as on today) for the land-in-question could be said to be belonging to oppressed and downtrodden marginalized society or had been tilling the land-in-question with his own hands, that too when the land-in-question had been taken on rent for Dairy Farming by Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm. 40. 40. Further, the Lease Agreement was executed in 1964 between Subedar Dharam Singh and Hans Raj, son of Lala Mani Ram Mahajan on behalf of Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm. Here, what is to be taken note of is that Hans Raj was the son of Lala Mani Ram Mahajan. The term “Lala” is used for rich merchant; meaning thereby Hans Raj belonged to a well off and rich merchant family. Otherwise too, it has come on record that Hans Raj and his predecessors-in-interest belong to rich business family. 41. Once it is clear that Hans Raj, who executed the Lease Deed on behalf of Rashtriya Milk Dairy Farm, did not belong to the oppressed and downtrodden marginalized society, the purpose and the object behind the enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Svt. 2007 (1950 A.D.) as well as Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act 1972 would get defeated if persons like Hans Raj are treated to be the actual tillers. Thus, from every angle Hans Raj did not qualify the term actual tiller and fail to satisfy the three ingredients referred to in paragraph-20 above. Therefore, on this score alone the writ petition merits to be dismissed. 42. Further, the object of the above Acts was not to abolish landlordism altogether, as the Acts allowed the landlords to cultivate the land through the tenants provided the land is within the ceiling area and the unit of land not exceeding 182 kanals. In the present case, the land-in-question is 83 kanals 18 marlas and it has no where pleaded either by Hans Raj or his predecessors-in-interest that Subedar Dharam Singh alone was having much more land over and above the ceiling of 182 kanals and that Hans Raj had been personally tilling the same in Kharif 1971. Since the land-in-question is within the ceiling area, as such petitioners are debarred from invoking the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972 or Jammu & Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Svt. 2007 (1950 A.D.). Therefore, on this score too, the writ petition merits to be dismissed. 43. As regards the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the learned Tribunal could not direct restoration of possession for want of power in that behalf, I am of the view that the said contention is not well founded. 2007 (1950 A.D.). Therefore, on this score too, the writ petition merits to be dismissed. 43. As regards the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the learned Tribunal could not direct restoration of possession for want of power in that behalf, I am of the view that the said contention is not well founded. The Tribunal can exercise powers contained in the Code of Civil Procedure and can even go beyond the Code as long as it passes orders in conformity with principles of natural justice and to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in directing the restoration of possession in favour of respondents 1(i) to 1(vi) by the learned Tribunal as regards the land-in-question, that too when it is established that the petitioners are in unauthorized possession of the land-in-question for the last more than 34 years after the expiry of lease period on 23.06.1984. 44. Therefore, in view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with the connected miscellaneous petitions. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 45. Registry to forthwith send down the record against proper receipt. Jammu (Tashi Rabstan) 30.01.2019.