HC upholds tribunal order remanding agrarian dispute for fresh inquiry

12/03/2026

Jammu, Mar 11: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld an order of the J&K Special Tribunal remanding an agrarian dispute to the Tehsildar for fresh adjudication, observing that a remand aimed at proper determination of rights cannot ordinarily be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal passed the order while dismissing a writ petition filed by BansiLal and others challenging the tribunal's decision dated October 17, 2018.
The petitioners, represented by senior advocate R P Sharma along with advocate Rohit Gupta, had sought quashing of the order passed by the J&K Special Tribunal in a revision petition titled "Gurdeep Singh and others vsBansiLal and others".
The tribunal had set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar, Kathua, for a de novo enquiry with directions to pass a fresh order after hearing all parties.
Opposing the petition, assisting counsel Priyanka Bhat appearing with senior additional advocate general Monika Kohli and advocate Vishal Goel argued that the tribunal had exercised its revisional jurisdiction lawfully after noticing irregularities in the earlier proceedings.
Background of the dispute
According to the petitioners, mutation No. 132 dated December 12, 1983 under the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act had been attested by the Tehsildar, Kathua in favour of Madho Lal, Gian Chand, Chuni Lal, Moti Ram and Bansi Lal as tenants in possession of the land since Kharif 1971.
Subsequently, mutation No. 135 dated April 12, 1984 under Section 8 of the Act was attested, conferring ownership rights on them in equal shares over land situated in village Chhaiyal, Kathua.
The petitioners contended that the appellate authority had rightly upheld the mutations and that the tribunal exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by setting aside the appellate order and directing a fresh enquiry.
They argued that under Section 21(2) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, revisional powers could be exercised only when a question of law or issue of public interest was involved, which, according to them, was absent in the present case.
Court's observations
After hearing the parties and examining the record, the high court held that the revisional authority had acted within its jurisdiction while directing a fresh inquiry to properly adjudicate the dispute.
Justice Nargal observed that the tribunal had found it appropriate to remand the matter so that the revenue authorities could examine the issues afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
The court noted that a remand order intended to facilitate proper adjudication and to cure procedural irregularities cannot ordinarily be interfered with unless it suffers from jurisdictional error or causes manifest injustice.
The judgment further recorded that the tribunal had exercised its powers to ensure that the matter was examined comprehensively at the level of the competent revenue authority.
Petition dismissed
Holding that the petition lacked merit, the court declined to interfere with the tribunal's order.
"The revisional authority has rightly remanded the matter for fresh inquiry. No ground for interference under writ jurisdiction is made out," the court observed.
Accordingly, the high court dismissed the writ petition along with connected applications and upheld the order directing the Tehsildar, Kathua, to conduct a fresh enquiry and pass a reasoned order after hearing all parties.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty