AB GANI WANI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER
LAWS(J&K)-2006-12-15
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on December 04,2006

Ab Gani Wani Appellant
VERSUS
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THROUGH the medium of this writ petition, petitioners have sought writ of certiorari for quashing order No.S/Misc/80 dated 20 -9 -1980 passed by respondent no. 1 in the capacity as Financial Commissioner, J&K Government, on the grounds taken in the writ petition.
(2.) IT appears that original writ petitioner; Abdul Gani Wani had filed a suit for permanent injunction. There -after he filed another suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming title in respect of land measuring 21 kanals falling under khasra No. 1162 of village Novvhatta, known as Khashkhashbagh, on the basis of adverse possession. The said suit is pending adjudication before the trial court till date. It appears that during pendency of the suit, petitioner had moved an application for grant of ad -interim relief which came to be dismissed and feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed appeal before Additional District Judge, Srinagar, it dismissed the appeal, affirming the order of the trial court. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the writ petitioner filed a revision before this court which came to be allowed vide order dated 16 -9 -1978 and directions came to be passed. In terms of those directions passed by this court, the file came up before the trial court and it again dismissed the application for grant of interim relief. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner again preferred appeal against the said order before District Judge, Srinagar which came to be assigned to Additional District Judge, Srinagar, it dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 22 -8 -1990. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the writ petitioners filed revision petition No. 19/1990 which came to be allowed vide order dated 20 -7 -2005 with the direction to the appellate court to hear the appeal afresh. The said appeal is still pending adjudication before the Additional District Judge, Srinagar.
(3.) ORIGINAL petitioner, in this petition had pleaded that the impugned order came to be passed at his back which has seriously affected his rights, because the revenue entry which was existing in his name came to be rectified and his name came to be removed from the revenue records. Further he has prayed that the matter was subjudice before the civil court and so many orders came to be passed by the trial court, appellate court and the revisional court, respondent no. 1 should not have passed the impugned order. He has accordingly prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the entries which were existing prior to the passing of the impugned order vis -a -vis land in dispute be restored. Respondent no. 1 has resisted the writ petition op the grounds taken in the counter. It is profitable to reproduce paras 6 and 8 of the reply hereunder: - - "6. As regards para 6 of the writ petition, it is submitted that as per true record, it is revealed that the land in question was in the possession of the Jail authorities, being Nazool land. Vide Government order No. 46 of 1973 dated 28 -1 -1973, the suit land among other pieces of land was transferred to Srinagar Development Authority. The said authority made plots of it and sold it to various persons for residential purposes. The possession was also transferred. It was not known to the deponent if any suit has been filed by the petitioner against the persons mentioned in this para. Assuming it to be so, it will not bind the answering respondents, because they are not parties to the said so called decree. x x x x x x x x x x x x 8. As regards para 8 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the impugned order makes it amply clear that tampering and interpolations which have taken place have not been carried over to Khatooni which is prepared from the Khasra Paimaish in respect of each land holder. It is after preparation of the Khatooni that the record of rights for a village is prepared in which also no change has been made. In view of the glaring and un -answerable discrepancies that petitioner was not at all entitled to a hearing";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.