- (1.) THIS writ petition succeeds oil a short point. It is contended in para 9 (J) that Joint Agrarian Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the respondents 2 to 10 because he was non -antity under the 1976 Act, Consequently any order passed by him will be nonest in the eyes of law.
(2.) MR R. A. Jan appearing for the state has infairness conceded that state is not interested in this petition because it is a dispute between two parties in respect of inheritance of property. Mr. Hagroo appearing for the respondents 2 to 10 her conceded that the appeal which was filed before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner and in which he has assumed jurisdiction may be directed to be beard by the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner. In that view of the matter he has no objection if the order passed by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner also is set aside. If that order is set aside, the result would be that the order passed by the Minister will be rendered nonest. However the right of the respondents 2 to 10 to be heard by a competent authority will not be taken away. They have filed the appeal before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner which appeal shall stand transferred by him to the Agrarian reforms Commissioner who is constituted under the Act of 1976 and who is a competent entity to hear the appeal and the appeal as originally filed shall be deemed as competent, its disposal alone in directed to be made by an authority who is recognized by the Agrarian Reforms Act. The learned counsel for the parties are entitled to raise any point before the appellate forum which may be vailable to them under law. The Agrarian Reforms Commissioner shall hear the parties and decide the appeal in accordance with law. The writ petition is, with these observations, disposed of. Learned counsel for the respondents shall appear before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner for seeking further instructions on September, 6th, 1986.;