(1.) THE validity of the order of the Revenue Minister dated 31st May, 1971 is the subject -matter of this writ petition.
(2.) THE relevant facts which led to the filing of the petition are as follows:
(3.) ONE Chattar Singh was a big landlord holding more than 182 kanals of land in village Sakari Tehsil Raiouri. On the coming into force of the Jammu and Kashmir Biff Landed Estates Abolition Act. 2007 (Samvat) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") he did not include in his Unit of 182 kanals two khasra Nos: being Khasra Nos. 8 and 10. the former measuring 13 kanals and 18 marlas and the latter 14 kanals and 5 marlas. This land was in the possession of three persons namely Mst. Parmano. Dalip Singh and Atma Ram in their capacity as occupancy tenants. Mst. Parmano had one half share whereas the other half share was held by the other two together. The Tehsildar acting under the provisions of the Act transferred Khasra No 8 in favour of the State as Mst. Parmano. the holder of the half share of the occupancy, was admittedly the owner of more than 182 kanals and could not have acauired proprietary title to the land to the extent of her share. The remaining half was however, transferred in ownership rights to Dalip Singh and Atma Ram as occupancv tenants under Section 6 of the Act. Khasra No. 8 which stood expropriated and which was transferred in ownership rights to the State by virtue of mutation order No. 265 dated 16th October 19&0. passed by the Settlement Tehsildar Raiouri. was subsequently allotted to one Mst. Dhanwanti under the provisions of the Cabinet Order No. 578 -C of 1954. Dalip Singh and Atma Ram being aggrieved with this mutation, went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer who had powers under the Act to hear the appeal and contended before him that in fact Mst. Parmano was not entitled to acquire the land under the provisions of the Act. the land should have been transferred in their favour as they were the tenants in cultivating Possession and were entitled to the same as tillers. This contention prevailed and the Settlement Officer set aside the order, of mutation passed by the Tehsildar after Mst. Dhanwanti the allottee had been impleaded as a party in the appeal. Mst. Dhawanti later filed a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner treated that revision as an appeal and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer holding that Dalip Singh and Atma Ram were not entitled to the land lying under Khasra No. 8 as they were not in cultivating Possession of the same on the crucial date i. e. 1 -7 -2007. Against this order of the Divisional Commissioner. Dalip Singh and Atma Rani went up in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner disposed of the revision petition vide his order dated 11 -3 -1970. One of the grounds taken before the Financial Commissioner was that the Divisional Commissioner had no powers to hear an appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer inasmuch as no second appeal lay under the provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 30 of the Act The Financial Commissioner, however, repelled this plea on the ground that Mst. Dhanwanti not being a party before the Tehsildar. could not be precluded from filing an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. On merits the Financial Commissioner held that Dalip Singh and Atma Ram were not entitled to ownership rights being not in cultivating possession of the land under the provisions of the Act. It appears that a review petition was thereafter filed before the Financial Commissioner against his order dated 11 -3 -1970 but he refused to interfere in review with his earlier order. Ultimately the matter was taken up in revision before the Revenue Minister and the Revenue Minister passed the impugned order setting aside the orders of the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner on the sole ground that no second appeal lay before the Commissioner and the proceedings before him were unwarranted and could not be sustained. The Revenue Minister refrained from examining the merits of the matter and considered it proper to dispose of the petition on that ground alone. It is under these circumstances that Mst. Dhanwanti has come up to this court in writ praying that the impugned order may be set aside.