Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. I have heard learned Counsel and considered the matter. Taken in a capsule the question involved in the matter is whether Financial Commissioner while dismissing petitioners' revision petition exercised the jurisdiction vesting in him properly. The factual background of the whole controversy as gatherable from pleadings is that landed property of Nand Lal who as per Patwari's note of 5th Magar 2008 BK was unheard of and hence out of possession of his proprietary land measuring 31 kanals and 15 marlas that had been mutated in his favour under mutation No. 125, was further mutated under mutation No. 157, in the name of Jawala Dutt and Jagdish Chand sons of Atma Ram, the brother-in-law of Nand Lal who as per petitioners' had been in possession of land whereafter the said two persons sold the same to their predecessor-in-interest, under registered sale deeds, photo copies whereof have been appended to the petition and later mutated in their favour in terms of subsequent mutation attested by competent revenue officers. Under mutation No. 402 of 1971, the land appears to have escheated in favour of State and recorded as Khalisa Sarkar albeit in accordance with order of Assistant Commissioner dated: 07.01.1963 and that of Dy. Commissioner, Srinagar dated: 02.01.1971 where after the said mutation was attested on 3.3.1971. The attested copy of said mutation placed on file is, that of "Parath Patwar" according to which the reasons for attestation whereof have been mentioned on "Parat Sarkar" of the mutation which is not forth coming for the alleged reason of having been gutted in fire incident alongwith connected record.