JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call in question an order dated 17th October, 2018, passed by the J&K Special Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in a revision petition titled “Abdul Rehman Lone vs. Shri Piyare Lal Raina and others” whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners and upheld the order dated 3rd October, 2017 passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Anantnag. 2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel for the petitioners to assail the impugned order, it would be necessary to give brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to the filing of the instant petition. 3. The land, which is subject matter of entire controversy, measures 01 kanal and 07 marlas falling under Survey No.389 Khewat No.2 and Khata No.2 situate at Village Kharman. As per Jamabandi of 1971-72, the subject land was recorded in the ownership of Niranjan Nath S/o Haldar and Jia Lal S/o Sona Nath (Khud Kasht Jia Lal Hissadar). After the death of Niranjan Nath and Jia Lal Raina, the subject property was inherited by their legal heirs, namely, Piyare Lal Raina and Ramesh Kumar Raina, respondent No.2 and 3 in this petition. In the year 1990, respondent No.2 and 3 were forced to leave the Valley in the wake of eruption of militancy. As it has come on record that on 7th February, 2000, the respondent No.2 and 3 executed an agreement to sell in favour of Late Gul Bhat S/o Habibullah Bhat for a sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/. The subject property, which is claimed by the private respondents, came into permissive possession of respondent No.4 to 9 and the process for seeking permission of the competent authority to effect sale was set in motion. It was during the course of preparing the papers for seeking permission, it came to the notice of respondent No.2 and 3 that there was some mutation under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act [“the Act”] i.e. mutation No.1082 dated 14th April, 2000, attested in favour of the petitioners. 4. Feeling aggrieved and with a view to avoid aforesaid mutation, the respondent No.2 and 3 through their Power of Attorney holder filed an appeal before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Anantnag, challenging mutation No.1082 dated 14 th April, 2000. 4. Feeling aggrieved and with a view to avoid aforesaid mutation, the respondent No.2 and 3 through their Power of Attorney holder filed an appeal before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Anantnag, challenging mutation No.1082 dated 14 th April, 2000. The Commissioner Agrarian Reforms accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned mutation, primarily, on the ground that the mutation under Section 8 had been attested by the Tehsildar, Kulgam, without first attesting a mutation under Section 4 of the Act. The impugned mutation attested under Section 8 of the Act was held to be an outcome of fraud. The Commissioner Agrarian Reforms rejected the plea of the petitioners that the appeal was barred by limitation and held that there is no limitation to challenge an action which is an outcome of fraud. This was done by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms vide order dated 4th October, 2107. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms (supra), the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms and dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 17th October, 2018. It is this order of the Tribunal which, as stated above, is impugned in this petition by the petitioner on multiple grounds. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference with the impugned order, that too in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both the forums below i.e. Commissioner Agrarian Reforms and Tribunal, have returned concurrent finding of fact that mutation under Section 8 of the Act attested by Tehsildar, Kulgam, in favour of the petitioners was an outcome of fraud. This Court, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot take over and assume character of an Appellate Court and re-appreciate the concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below unless such findings are shown to be perverse. 7. Indisputably, the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent No.2 and 3, were recorded owners in cultivating possession of the subject land, as is evident from Jamabandi, 1971-72. 7. Indisputably, the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent No.2 and 3, were recorded owners in cultivating possession of the subject land, as is evident from Jamabandi, 1971-72. It is also on record that the subject land was transferred by way of an agreement to sell by respondent No.2 and 3 in favour of one Gull Bhat S/o Habibullah, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.4 to 9. It was during the processing of the case for seeking permission from the competent authority to execute a formal sale deed in favour of respondent No.4 to 9, it came to light that with respect to the subject land, there was a mutation under Section 8 of the Act attested in favour of the petitioners. It was mutation No.1082 dated 14th April, 2000. The respondent No.2 and 3 also came to know that mutation under Section 8 of the Act was attested without the attestation of mutation under Section 4 of the Act. On enquiry, respondent No.2 and 3 found that the reference to mutation under Section 4 of the Act being mutation No.1006 was false and frivolous. As is claimed, the respondent No.2 and 3, despite their efforts, could not trace out any mutation attested under Section 4 of the Act referable to mutation No.1082 dated 14th April, 2000 attested under Section 8 of the Act. Having been taken by surprise, respondent No.2 and 3 immediately filed an appeal before the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Anantnag to throw challenge to Section 8 mutation. 8. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved, the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms directed Tehsildar (Headquarter Assistant) to enquire into the matter and submit a report on 24th August, 2017. The Headquarter Assistant/Tehsildar conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report to the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Anantnag, indicating therein that mutation under Section 8 attested in favour of the petitioner by the then Tehsildar, Kulgam, was not referable to any mutation with respect to the subject property attested under Section 4 of the Act. The report further revealed that mutation No.1006 purportedly attested under Section 4 of the Act, which was taken as basis for conferment of proprietary rights under Section 8, was a mutation attested under Section 12 of the Act and it was in respect of land measuring 03 kanals and 13 marlas comprising Survey No.361 and was attested in favour of one Naba S/o Ahad R/o Baghi Wanposh. The Tehsildar/Headquarter Assistant also found that there was no relation between mutation No.1006 attested under Section 4 with mutation No.1082 attested under Section 8 of the Act. The Enquiry Officer also found that the petitioners were not in cultivating possession of the subject land as tiller in Kharief 1971 and, therefore, there was no question of attesting any mutation under Section 4 of the Act. It is on the basis of revenue record and after hearing the rival contentions, the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms allowed the appeal and set aside mutation No.1082 dated 14thApril, 2000 vide order dated 14th April, 2017.The Revisional Court i.e. the Tribunal concurred with the view of the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners vide order dated 17th October, 2018, which is impugned in this petition. 9. As has been held above and is otherwise trite law that this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, cannot go into the disputed questions of fact nor can it sit in an appeal over the concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Revenue Courts below. Otherwise also, it is evident from the record that the petitioners were not recorded as „tiller? in Kharief 1971 and that being the position, no mutation under Section 4 of the Act could have been attested qua the subject land recording the petitioners as prospective owners. It is true that the petitioners could have demonstrated before the Mutating Officer that notwithstanding contrary entry in Kharief 1971, they were actually in cultivating possession of the subject land as „tiller? thereof and could have sought correction of Girdawari entry by having resort to Rule 4 of the J&K Agrarian Rules, 1977 [“the Rules”]. However, this has not happened in the instant case. As a matter of fact and is concurrently held by both the Revenue Courts below, neither a Sehat Indraj mutation was ever attested nor was mutation under Section 4 qua the subject land attested. Through deceitful means and obviously with the connivance of Revenue Officers/Officials, the mutation under Section 8 of the Act was directly attested by making reference to a mutation under Section 4 attested in favour of a different person and with respect to a different land. Through deceitful means and obviously with the connivance of Revenue Officers/Officials, the mutation under Section 8 of the Act was directly attested by making reference to a mutation under Section 4 attested in favour of a different person and with respect to a different land. As is rightly held by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms that in such cases where a mutation is found to be a result of fraud and deceit, there is no limitation to challenge such action. The Revisional Court has correctly appreciated this aspect of the matter and rightly declined the argument of the petitioners that the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms should not have entertained a time barred appeal. 10. “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is well settled that any benefit obtained by way of a judgment or decree passed by the court or an act or omission of a public servant by playing fraud is a nullity and non-est in the eye of law. The proposition holds equally good in the case of such orders obtained from Revenue Authorities/Revenue Courts by playing fraud or through deceitful means. The Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs(Preventive) vs. M/S. Aafloat Textiles (I) P.Ltd. & Ors, (2009) 11 SCC 18 , in para 11 held thus: 11. "Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors. ( 2003 (8) SCC 319 ). 11. In the case of Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh, the Hon?ble Supreme Court held that “fraud vitiates every solemn proceeding and no right can be claimed by a fraudster on the ground of technicalities. In para 67, the Hon?ble Court held thus: 67. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319 , wherein it was observed that fraud vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together and it cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including resjudicata. This Court observed as under: “15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud, as is well known, vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. 16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter. 17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. 18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. *** *** *** 23. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. *** *** *** 25. *** *** *** 23. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. *** *** *** 25. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including resjudicata.” 12. From the aforesaid legal position, it is abundantly clear that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument, deed, judgment, decree and order obtained through fraud is a nullity in the eye of law and such an order can be questioned at any time, so much so it can be ignored altogether before any court of law before it is questioned or produced in any proceeding. Once it is proved before the court of law that the order, instrument, decree or judgment brought before it, in any proceeding, is an outcome of fraud, the court of law shall forebear to endorse and perpetuate such fraud. Any transaction which is the result of misrepresentation, fraud or deceitful means is not protected on the ground of limitation. The court of law is under an obligation to refuse to give effect to such order, decree or judgment passed by any authority, much less to endorse or acknowledge it. The Commissioner Agrarian Reforms and the Tribunal have appreciated this aspect in its correct perspective and have rightly set aside the mutation under Section 8 attested in favour of the petitioners without there being any mutation qua the subject land attested under Section 4 of the Act. 13. That apart, it is clearly seen that the petitioners were not recorded tillers qua the subject in Kharief 1971 and, therefore, were otherwise not entitled to be recorded as prospective owners at the time of attestation of mutation under Section 4 and conferred with the proprietary rights under Section 8 of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that they ever applied for correction of Girdawari entry of Kharief 1971 by having resort to Rule 4 of the Rules or that any such mutation in this respect was ever attested. It is not the case of the petitioners that they ever applied for correction of Girdawari entry of Kharief 1971 by having resort to Rule 4 of the Rules or that any such mutation in this respect was ever attested. This Court would have appreciated had the petitioners brought on record any mutation attested under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the subject land. The over emphasised assertion of the petitioners that it were they who alone were in cultivating possession of subject land in Kharief 1971 cannot be accepted in the absence of relevant revenue record. Needless to reiterate that under the Act, Girdawari entry of Kharief 1971 is presumed to be correct unless proven otherwise. For proving so, the procedure laid down under Rule 4 of the Rules is required to be followed. In any such enquiry initiated by the Revenue Officer for correction of Girdawari entry of Kharief 1971, the persons who are actually recorded as tiller and owner are necessary parties to be heard. In the instant case, the petitioners, who claim to be the tiller of the subject land in Kharief, 1971 notwithstanding the contrary Khasra Girdawari entry of Kharief, 1971, have, seemingly, not approached the Revenue Authority for correction of Kharief 1971 entry nor has the Tehsildar while attesting mutations in the Village concerned embarked upon such enquiry at the instance of the petitioners. There is no such mutation indicating the correction of Khasra Girdawari entry of Kharief 1971 brought on record by the petitioners. Rather findings of the two revenue courts below are that the mutation under Section 8 of the Act in favour of the petitioners was attested by the then Tahsildar, Kulgam, without there being any mutation under Section 4 attested by the competent Revenue Officer qua the subject land. The revenue courts below have clearly unraveled a fraud committed by the petitioners in connivance with the then revenue officers. There is fallacious reference made to a mutation under Section 4 of the Act which, admittedly, pertains to some other land and has been attested in favour of some other person named Naba. 14. Be that as it may, the fact remains that neither the petitioners were entitled to be recorded as prospective owners under Section 4 of the Act nor were they eligible to be conferred the ownership rights under Section 8 of the Act. 14. Be that as it may, the fact remains that neither the petitioners were entitled to be recorded as prospective owners under Section 4 of the Act nor were they eligible to be conferred the ownership rights under Section 8 of the Act. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find it a fit case to interfere with the concurrent finds of fact returned by two revenue courts below, more so when such findings have not been found suffering from any perversity. 15. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.