ORDER : 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner implores for the following reliefs; (i) Issue the writ of certiorari quashing the Notice No. 59-64/NTB/2015-16 dated 19th September, 2015 issued by respondent No. 6. (ii) With a further prayer restraining the respondents from interfering or causing any interference in any manner into the peaceful possession of the petitioners over their aforesaid properties of (i) petitioner No.1 in Khasra No. 859 measuring 7 Kanals situated in Village Salehar, Tehsil R. S. Pora, now Tehsil Bishnah; (ii) petitioner No. 2 in Khasra No.1787/106 measuring 5 Kanals 5 Marlas before Settlement and after Settlement (undertaken in early 90s) and changed to Khasra No. 1609 as per the new record, situated at Village Kothey Salehar, Tehsil R. S. Pora, now Tehsil Bishnah; (iii) petitioner No. 3 and 4 in Khasra No 1876/75 before Settlement and after Settlement (undertaken in early 90s) and changed to Khasra No. 242 as per the new record, situated at Village Kothey Salehar, Tehsil R. S. Pora, now Tehsil Bishnah (iv) And petitioner No. 5 in Khasra No. 724 measuring 8 Kanals 3 Marlas situated at Village Salehar, Tehsil R.S. Pora, now Tehsil Bishnah. (iii) With a further direction to get the issuance of Notice by the respondent No. 6 to accommodate respondent No. 7 and so-called eviction of the poor petitioners from their aforesaid pieces of land, investigated by an Independent Investigating Agency i.e., CBI or any other Independent Investigating Agency in order to reach the truth and expose the misdeeds of respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 in harassing the poor petitioners. (iv) Such other additional or alternative relief which this Hon’ble Court may in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. 2. The background facts under the shade and cover of which the petitioners implore for the reliefs aforesaid in brief as stated in the petition are that the petitioners fore fathers had been in cultivating possession of barren State land 50 years back. 2. The background facts under the shade and cover of which the petitioners implore for the reliefs aforesaid in brief as stated in the petition are that the petitioners fore fathers had been in cultivating possession of barren State land 50 years back. It is being stated that the petitioner No. 1 has been in cultivating possession of 7 Kanals of land covered under Khasra No. 859, petitioner No 2 in cultivating possession of land measuring 5 Kanals 5 Marlas under Khasra No. 1787/106 (after settlement Khasra No. 1609) and petitioners 3 and 4 in cultivating possession of land measuring 8 Kanals 15 Marlas covered under Khasra No. 1876/75 (after settlement Khasra No. 242) and petitioner No. 5 in cultivating possession of land measuring 8 Kanals 3 Marlas under Khasra No. 724 situated at village Salehar, Tehsil R. S. Pora now Tehsil Bishnah. 3. It is being stated that prior to be in cultivating possession of the aforesaid land, the petitioners grand-fathers and after their death, their fathers have been in cultivating possession of their aforesaid respective lands and same had been recorded in the relevant revenue records as well. 4. It is being stated that in view of being in continuous cultivating possession of their respective parcels of land, the official respondents ought to have conferred ownership rights thereof in favour of the petitioners but instead, it is being stated that the land in question came to be allotted through paper entries in favour of father of respondent No. 7 despite the fact that neither respondent No. 7 nor his father had been in cultivating possession of the land in question. 5. It is being stated that respondent No. 7 in connivance with respondent No. 4 approached respondent No. 2 through the medium of an application who is stated to have marked the same to Sub Divisional Magistrate, R. S. Pora with a direction to examine all records and to take further necessary action. 6. It is being stated that the file was reassigned by the said Sub Divisional Magistrate to respondent No. 5 who is stated to have along with respondent No. 4 processed the file and passed a direction to respondent No. 5 “with the remark” to extend full cooperation of respondent No. 7 so that he is given possession of his landed property. The said direction is stated to have been issued by respondent No. 4 upon an application filed by respondent No. 7 on the ground that he is serving in the Air- Force and that the land allotted to his father has been encroached upon and that he was not aware of said encroachment. 7. It is being stated that on 19th September, 2015, the petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 were served with a notice by respondent No. 5 through Patwari of the area around 9:00 pm in the night. The said notice is stated to have revealed that respondent No. 5 had directed petitioners to show cause sufficient reasons as to why dispossession proceedings be not initiated against them within a period of two days from the date of receipt of the notice i.e., before (Monday) 21-09-2015. 8. It is being stated that the said notice had been a mere formality and that before the petitioners could seek legal advice on the notice, the petitioners were shocked to see on 21st September, 2015 before 7:00 am in the morning, police personal approximately deputed on the land in question along with respondent No. 7 without allowing the petitioners entry upon the land in question. It is being stated that red entry in the girdawari records of the petitioners came to be effected in respect of the land in question immediately and that despite the said red entries in the record, the petitioners continued to be in possession of their respective parcels of lands in question. 9. It is being stated that the petitioners are poor agriculturists by profession and that respondent No. 7 is an influential person and he hand in glow with respondent No. 4 managed the issuance of notice in question for dispossession of the petitioners from the land in question. The said notice according to the petitioners is stated to have been issued arbitrarily in mala fide exercise of power by respondents 4, 5 and 6 and is being thrown challenge to inter alia on the following grounds which are extracted and reproduced hereunder; i) Because the action of the respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 in issuing the impugned Notice without adopting due procedure of law and ousting the petitioners of their respective pieces of land, is a case willful neglect of performance of their duties. This has caused grave miscarriage of justice to the poor and innocent petitioners and violated the principles of natural justice, fairness and good-conscience and the same cannot be sustained in law, thus, the notice impugned deserves to be quashed outrightly. ii) Because it is the prime duty of the State to guarantee its citizens a secured environment where its citizen has a right to earn his/her livelihood without any hindrance from any quarter. Thus, the action on part of respondents No. 4,5 and 6 in following due procedure of law in providing an opportunity of being heard, has violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners, hence, they deserve the kind indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for their rescue, thus, the notice impugned deserves to be quashed out-rightly on this score alone. iii) Because the petitioner has the right to freedom of peaceful enjoyment of their property as guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of J&K. Thus, the action of the respondents No. 4,5 and 6 abridging the fundamental rights of the petitioners, is against the law of the land and not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus, the notice impugned deserves to be quashed out-rightly. iv) Because the petitioners have not been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and were deprived of their rights to enjoy their afore-said pieces of land respectively in the most arbitrary and mala-fide manner. The petitioners are victims of the mischief planned by respondents No. 4, 5 and 6, in dereliction of their duties as public servants towards the petitioners thus, the notice impugned deserves to be quashed out-rightly. v) Because no due procedure of law was followed by the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 in depriving the petitioners of their rightful possession over their afore-said respective pieces of land, for the past more than 50 years, thus, the notice impugned deserves to be quashed out-rightly. vi) Because the Notice was served on the petitioners on 19-09-2015 (Saturday) at 9 PM and they were given one night (late Saturday night) and one Sunday, to reply or submit their objections to the same, whereas it was nearly impossible for the petitioners to have consulted any legal advice on the same. vi) Because the Notice was served on the petitioners on 19-09-2015 (Saturday) at 9 PM and they were given one night (late Saturday night) and one Sunday, to reply or submit their objections to the same, whereas it was nearly impossible for the petitioners to have consulted any legal advice on the same. In absence of any reply or objections on part of the petitioners, to the impugned Notice, the respondents No. 4,5 and 6 were follow the due procedure established by law before depriving them petitioners of their afore-said pieces of land. vii) Because a perusal of the subject of the application submitted by the respondent no. 7 reveals that through the medium of the said application, he was intended to know the encroachments/Nishandehi of the land allegedly owned by him. But the action of the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 is not only beyond the scope of the application submitted by him but also beyond the scope of law. The same is bad per se and the notice impugned is liable to be dismissed out-rightly. viii) Because respondent No. 4, vide his order No. DCJ/PS/2015/854 dated 09-09-2015 directed the respondent No. 5 to extend full cooperation to the respondent No. 7 so that he is given possession of his landed property. It is relevant there to submit that such directions issued by respondent No. 4 out and out to favour the respondent No. 7 at the behest of respondent No. 4 and 5, are arbitrary and malafide of authority. Keeping in view the intentions of the respondents 4, 5 and 6 clearly to accommodate respondent No. 7 by hook or by crook, even though, if it requires flouting the mandatory provisions of law, of for their vested interests, shakes the very conscience of our democratic set-up of our Nation. Keeping in view the intentions of the respondents 4, 5 and 6 clearly to accommodate respondent No. 7 by hook or by crook, even though, if it requires flouting the mandatory provisions of law, of for their vested interests, shakes the very conscience of our democratic set-up of our Nation. ix) Because the respondent No.7, admittedly not even aware of the location of his alleged owned land and still the respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 are hell-bent to oust the petitioners from their lawful possession of their respective aforesaid pieces of land in violation of statutory position, for their vested interests, is totally against settled legal position and Revenue law governing the field in the State of J&K x) Because the impugned Notice further envisages that “if this office does not hear a justifiable reason from your end within this much of time, it shall be presumed that you have nothing to submit in your favour”, which is not only arbitrary but also mala fide exercise of authority by respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 in order to accommodate respondent No. 7 and evict the poor petitioners. This action of the said respondents in departure of the statutory position, is unheard of and has occurred for the first time in the history of Revenue law. 10. The petitioners based on the contentions raised coupled with aforesaid grounds urged in the petition invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court through the medium of the instant petition praying the reliefs aforesaid. 11. Per contra respondent No. 3 and 7 have filed objections in opposition to the instant writ petition resisting and controverting the contentions raised and grounds urged in the petition. 12. 11. Per contra respondent No. 3 and 7 have filed objections in opposition to the instant writ petition resisting and controverting the contentions raised and grounds urged in the petition. 12. Respondent No. 3 in the objections has stated that land measuring 30 Kanals in village Salehar (now Kothey Salehar) had been allotted to the father of respondent No. 7 vide Cabinet order No. 578-C of 1954 on account of being a dis-placed person of 1947 from POK and that the said land had been illegally occupied by the petitioners and that on account of illegal occupation of the said land by the petitioners, the respondent No. 7 submitted a representation to respondent No. 2 on 10-12-2014 for restoration of possession of land in question falling under Khasra No. 242 (8 Kanals 15 Marlas), 290 (5 Kanals 5 Marlas), 724 (8 Kanals 3 Marlas), 859 (7 Kanals) making the total land 29 Kanals 03 Marlas. 13. It is being stated in the objections that the respondent No. 7 upon his retirement from the Indian Air Force intended to bring the land in question under his self-cultivation and since the said land had been encroached by the petitioners, as such, upon the application of respondent No. 7, respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 09-09-2015 directed the Tehsildar, Bishnah to extend full cooperation for restoration of possession of the land in question in favour of respondent No. 7 as the respondent No. 7 had been vested with occupancy tenancy rights under mutation No.1748 and ownership rights vide mutation No. 1749 after the death of his father. 14. It is being stated in the objections that the land in question was retrieved from the encroachers/petitioners peacefully and handed over on spot to respondent No. 7 and recorded in the revenue records as well. 15. It is being stated that the removal of encroachment was carried out after issuance of notice dated 19-09-2015 to the petitioners whereunder they were directed to show cause as to why dispossession proceedings be not initiated against them and that the principles of natural justice were thus, adhere to and that the cost of the crops standing on the land in question had been deposited by respondent No. 7 for payment to the petitioners. It is being stated in the objections that the allegations levelled by the petitioners are denied being frivolous, misplaced and far from reality. 16. It is being stated in the objections that the allegations levelled by the petitioners are denied being frivolous, misplaced and far from reality. 16. Respondent No. 7 in his objections filed to the writ petition has stated that his father being a dis-placed person from POK in 1947 had been allotted land measuring 30 Kanals under Khasra No. 242, 290, 724 and 859 under Cabinet order No. 578-C dated 07-05-1954. 17. It is being stated in the objections that the land was duly mutated in the name of the answering respondent vide mutation No. 1748 and 1749 dated 18th May, 1993, after the demise of father by the official respondents. 18. It is being stated that under the Cabinet order dated 07-05-1954 dis-placed family was required to bring the allotted land under personal cultivation with an exception to the persons employed in Defence Forces of Indian Union or State Militia and that the said exception was available to the respondent No. 7 being in active defence service as Air Comodore. 19. It is being stated that the land in question was being looked after by his maternal uncle who had given the same for cultivation to the petitioners being local residents and that the petitioners in connivance with revenue authorities got their names entered into revenue records in respect of the land in question and that upon coming to know the same, the respondent No. 7 requested the petitioners to vacate the land in question who instead of vacating the same started asserting their rights in respect of the land in question compelling the respondent No. 7 to seek the retrieval of the land and removal of the encroachment of the petitioners by filing an application on 10-12-2014 before the official respondents who are stated to have demarcated the land in presence of the petitioners on 13th June, 2015 making the petitioners aware that they have no claim over the land in question and that same stands allotted to respondent No. 7. 20. It is being stated that a report in this regard was made by Tehsildar and sent to the Deputy Commissioner on 20th August, 2015 for seeking instructions. It is being stated that the Deputy Commissioner vide his letter dated 09-09-2015 directed the Tehsildar, Bishnah to ensure that full cooperation is extended to respondent No. 7 so that he is given possession of his landed property. It is being stated that the Deputy Commissioner vide his letter dated 09-09-2015 directed the Tehsildar, Bishnah to ensure that full cooperation is extended to respondent No. 7 so that he is given possession of his landed property. A copy of the said letter is also stated to have been addressed to SHO, Police Station, Bishnah. 21. It is being next stated that the said letter dated 09-09-2015, came to be endorsed by the Tehsildar to Naib Tehsildar C. No. 10 who is stated to have issued a notice of show cause to the petitioners. It is being stated that after the issuance of the notice dated 19- 09-2015, the respondent No. 7 was directed to deposit Rs. 39,000/- as compensation for the standing crop and to remain personally present on 21-09-2015 for receipt of physical possession of the land in question and it is being stated that on 21-09-2015, the possession of the land in question in four patches was handed over to the respondent No. 7 by the revenue authorities in presence of SHO, Armia, Lumber Dar and Chowkidar of the village. 22. It is being further stated that after taking over the possession of the land in question, necessary entries were also entered into girdawari by the revenue authorities and were provided to respondent No. 7. 23. It is pertinent and significant to mention here that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent No. 7 filed CM No. 3364/2019 for placing on record copy of application dated 10- 12-2014 submitted by respondent No. 7 before respondent No. 2 Divisional Commissioner as also summon dated 11-06-2015, copies of statements of Kuldeep Singh, Bachan Lal, Mast Ram and Barra Ram (being petitioners in the petition), report of Naib Tehsildar Circle No. 10 Bishnah, report of Tehsildar Bishnah. The said application came to be allowed by this court in terms of order dated 21-09-2019 in presence of appearing counsel for the parties. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 24. The moot point involved in the instant petition that emerges for consideration of this court would be as to whether the official respondents have had afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before seeking their eviction from the land in question. 25. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 24. The moot point involved in the instant petition that emerges for consideration of this court would be as to whether the official respondents have had afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before seeking their eviction from the land in question. 25. Perusal of the record would demonstrate that admittedly, land measuring 30 Kanals under Khasra No. 859, 242, 290, 724 and 578 had been allotted to the father of respondent No. 7, whereafter his death, same came to be mutated in the name of respondent No. 7 under mutation No. 1748 and 1749 on 18th May, 1993. The Khasra Girdawari while recording the possession of the petitioners had been recording name of respondent No. 7 in the column of title/ownership. 26. Further perusal of the record tends to show that that upon filing of an application by respondent No. 7 before the respondent No. 2 on 10-12-2014, for removal of encroachment of his land from the petitioners and upon forwarding of the same to Tehsildar SDM/Tehsildar, Bishnah and in turn by him to Naib Tehsildar, a summon had been issued to the petitioners by the Naib Tehsildar initially on 05-06-2015, calling upon them to be present on 06-06-2015 at 11.00 am. 27. Further perusal of the record also reveals that notice dated 05- 06-2015 has been followed by another notice issued by Naib Tehsildar on 11-06-2015 issued to the petitioners calling upon them to be present for enquiry on 13th June, 2015. 28. Further perusal of the record tends to show that petitioners in response to the notice issued to them have appeared before Tehsildar, Bishnah and have got their statements recorded wherein they have conceded and admitted to be cultivating the land far and on behalf of the father of respondent No. 7 during his life time and after his death on behalf of respondent No. 7. 29. 29. Perusal of the record would further reveal that a report in this regard had also been prepared by Naib Tehsildar bearing No. TB/OQ/2015-16/332 dated 20-08-2015 and upon receipt of the said report of enquiry conducted by the Naib Tehsildar/Tehsildar Bishnah, the matter was submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu who after perusal of the report and case file, directed the Tehsildar vide his Order No. DCJ/PS/2015/854 dated 09-09-2015 to extend full cooperation to the Serving Air Officer (respondent No. 7) so that he is given possession of his landed property. 30. Perusal of the record further tends to show that the Tehsildar in turn directed the Naib Tehsildar C No. 10 Bishnah vide impugned notice dated 09-09-2015 to handover the possession of land to respondent No. 7 and to submit a compliance report in this behalf and that the Naib Tehsildar issued final notice dated 19-09-2015 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why dis-possession proceedings be not initiated against them within a period of two days and upon failure of the petitioners consequently took over the possession of the land in question on 21-09-2015, handed over the same to the respondent No. 7 as also got the necessary entries recorded in the relevant revenue records. 31. The sequence of above events manifestly demonstrates and suggest that the petitioners have had been provided an ample and sufficient opportunity by the official respondents qua undertaking recovery of possession from the petitioners of the land in question and handing over of the same to the respondent No. 7. Petitioners admittedly and seemingly have been heard by the official respondents during the course of an enquiry held in the matter wherein the statements of the petitioners have also been recorded. The petitioners deliberately and intentionally have chosen to withhold the said information from this court while maintaining the instant petition and have suppressed the said material facts. 32. The legal position in regard to the principles of natural justice is well settled by a long line of decisions of the Apex Court including in case titled as “Swadesh Cotton Mills vs. Union of India” reported in AIR 1981 SC 818 wherein following has been laid down; “Principle of natural justice aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Principles of natural justice do not supplant the law but supplement it.” These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They are means to an end and not an end in themselves. The principles of natural justice have many facets. Two of them are: notice of the case to be met and opportunity to explain”. 33. What emerges from above is that the petitioners are held to have been issued a notice/s by the official respondents in the matter inasmuch as provided an adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing by the official respondents, as such, the respondents can safely said to have followed the principles of natural justice in the matter. The grievance projected by the petitioners in the instant petition thus, is held to be misconceived and factually incorrect in this regard. 34. The petition, in view of above thus entails dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.