Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Rasool Dar vs State Of Jk And Ors on 7 July, 2022
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
S. No. 49
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
OWP No. 1663/2018 c/w OWP No. 1664/2018, OWP No. 1665/2018,
OWP No. 1666/2018, OWP No. 1667/2018, OWP No. 1668/2018 and
OWP No. 1669/2018
Ghulam Rasool Dar ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr H. U. Salathi, Advocate.
Vs.
State of JK and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr Mohammad Sultan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
07.07.2022
1. In the instant petitions, order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Srinagar, is under challenge.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of instant petitions would reveal that petitioner herein questioned mutation Nos. 597 dated 23.03.1999, 498 dated 24.03.1999, 599 dated 28.03.2011, 616 dated 25.10.1999, 619 dated 22.06.2000, 717 dated 03.06.2000 and 2214 dated 25.10.1999 attested by the Tehsildar, Srinagar, in respect of land measuring 26 kanals 01 marla falling under survey nos. 451 min, 437 min, 480 min, 431 min, 452 min, 422 min, 425 min, 427 min, 481 min, 438 min, 445 min, 426 min, 565 min, 446 min, 444 min, 435 min 436 min, 548 min, 668/440, 439, 661/440, 441, 442, 876/54, 979/54, 1025/54, corresponding to the new survey Nos. 722, 733, 732, 736, 731, 734 and 738, in consequence to sale deeds stated to have been executed in favour of the respondents herein. The said mutations had been thrown challenge to before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, by the petitioner herein inter-alia on the grounds that the said mutations are nullity having been attested against the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, and Standing Order 23-A.
3. Mr. H. U. Salathi, appearing counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), was under law obliged to exercise his statutory power enshrined under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, in order to determine the validity or otherwise of the impugned mutations. The Financial Commissioner, instead declined the same on the premise that the petitioner herein has questioned the sale deeds in consequence of which the impugned mutations had been attested before a civil court in civil suits and that it would be appropriate to await the findings therein the said civil suits as the findings of the said civil suits would determine the fate of the impugned mutations.
4. According to Mr Salathi, the said failure of the Financial Commissioner has resulted into substantial miscarriage of justice and as such, the impugned order is not legally sustainable.
5. According to Mr. Mohammad Sultan, counsel appearing for the respondents the impugned order has been passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) legally and validly and that there is no infirmity therein.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Before adverting to the issue involved in the instant petitions, it would be appropriate to make a reference to Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act which provides for power to revise orders where under besides the Divisional Commissioner, Financial Commissioner,(Revenue) is vested with the power to call for the record of any case pending or disposed of by any revenue officer under his control. The said revisional power under sub Section 4 Section 15 can be exercised by the Financial Commissioner suo-moto or upon being reported to him.
8. Reverting back to the facts of the case, record tends to show that petitioner herein questioned as many as eight sale deeds purporting to the land situated at Gangbugh, Srinagar, on the premise that the sale deeds executed relating to the land belonging to the petitioner and had not been extended by them and that the said sale deeds under law are nullity.
9. Perusal of the record further tends to show that mutations had been attested pursuant to the said sale deeds by the Tehsildar concerned and the said mutations became subject matter in the revision petitions filed by the petitioners herein before the Financial Commissioner.
10. Admittedly, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), has no power, competence or jurisdiction to determine the validity or otherwise of the sale deeds as same is beyond his domain yet, the fact cannot be lost sight of that the Financial Commissioner is vested with a revisional power under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, to revise the orders those may have been passed by any revenue office under his control as in the instant case petitioner had questioned the orders of mutations attested by the Tehsildar before the Financial Commissioner being a revisional authority. Financial Commissioner, as such, was within his powers to determine the validity or otherwise the said mutations having regard to the provisions of Land Revenue Act and Standing Order 23-A notwithstanding the pendency of the suits wherein the validity of the sale deeds had been questioned by the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner could not have deferred the consideration of the revision petitions on the premise that unless the civil suit determines the validity or otherwise of the sale deeds, the validity of the impugned mutations cannot be decided. The Financial Commissioner, manifestly has committed an error and in essence failed to exercise the revisional powers vested unto him under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act. The matter seemingly has not received appropriate consideration by the Financial Commissioner, as such, it is deemed appropriate that the matter be remanded back to the Financial Commissioner for reconsideration.
11. Accordingly, the petitions succeed and consequently impugned order dated 27.02.2018 is quashed and matter is remanded back to Financial Commissioner who shall re-visit and re-consider the same afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties and decide the same in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. Till the matter is decided by Financial Commissioner, parties to maintain status-quo on spot. It is made clear that nothing hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of any opinion about the merits of the case.
12. Disposed of.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 07.07.2022 Ishaq