BASHIR AHMAD TAK Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are aggrieved of the order dtd. 26/5/1993, passed by the Collector- Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama in an appeal filed by the respondent No. 3, against the order dtd. 28/5/1986, passed by the Tehsildar, Agrarian, Tral, in terms whereof the Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, while allowing the appeal, set aside the order of Tehsildar, Agrarian, Tral and directed him to attest the mutation order for correction of entries as was originally contemplated by such entry of mutation No. 566 to restore the recorded position as it stood before the impugned interpolation regarding Survey numbers as mentioned in mutation No. 566. Petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Tak, who was respondent before the Appellate Court, but had died during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, on knowledge about the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, dtd. 26/5/1993, challenged the same in revision petition bearing No. 67/1993, before the Financial Commissioner, J&K, Srinagar, and the Financial Commissioner, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, and considering the material on record, dismissed the revision petition vide order dtd. 21/1/1998. It is stated that the petitioners thereafter filed review petition against the order of the Financial Commissioner, J&K, Srinagar, dtd. 21/1/1998, which came to be dismissed on 7/9/1999. Petitioners have challenged these orders in the present writ petition on the grounds detailed out in the petition with particular reference that the orders impugned are against the records, therefore, are not only perverse but illegal also.

(2.) Mr. P. S. Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the basis of these orders are made on the wrong premises by relying on the stand taken by the respondent No. 3, with reference to being co-sharer of the property. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No. 3, by his own admissions has disclosed his relation qua the claim on the land, which is recorded by the Tehsildar, Agrarian, rightly and reversed by the orders impugned. Learned counsel further averred that the order passed by the Appellate Court is against a dead person, which is not permissible under law. It is further contended that the Appellate Court as also the Revisional Court had ignored the order passed by the Court of Munsiff in a compromise decree, which had determined the rights of the parties qua the subject. It is further contended that there was no scope for the revenue Courts to enter into the zone of determination of rights of the parties, which is barred by provisions of Land Revenue Act, with application of Sub Clause 2 of Sec. 26 of the Land Revenue Act.

(3.) Mr. P.S. Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Appellate as also the Revisional Court has decided the matter qua the claim of respondent No. 3, seeking correction in the revenue entries by entering into the zone of merit, which is not the power and jurisdiction of the revenue Courts. Learned counsel further submits that the Appellate as also the Revisional Court has not also considered the maintainability of the appeal and revision petition, as were barred by limitation. It is submitted that the mutation recorded on 28/5/1986, cannot be reversed in appeal, which is admittedly filed on 18/7/1989 after a period of about three years.