AB KHALIQ BHAT Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-2006-11-38
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on November 03,2006

Ab Khaliq Bhat Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) CLAIMING to be the owners of land measuring 31 Kanals 15 marlas under survey Nos.105,610,621,624,625, 103,622, 107 situate at Rekhi Suthu Tehsil Nowgam through their predecessors in interest, the petitioners, heirs of one Ramzan Bhat, Ama Wani, Rehman Bhat and Sona Sheikh by plead that the land in question was purchased by their predecessors from the original owners namely Jawala Datt and Jagdish Chander sons of the sister of original owner Nand Lal, and had been mutated in their favour under mutation No. 157 of Seripartab Singpora where -under the whole land under Khata No.2 -was transferred in favour of Jawala Datt and Jagdish Chander after deletion of NandLaPs name whereafter they sold it to predecessors of petitioners through different sale deeds executed and registered way backing in October, 1957 pursuant whereto the requisite mutations were also attested in their favour by concerned revenue officers. It is further pleaded that petitioners 13 to 16 are in continuous possession of the suit land and vested with ownership rights under the provisions of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, (in short "the Act"). Pleading that the entire chunk of land aforesaid was notified under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act for being acquired for laying/construction of railway track, the petitioners maintain that they accordingly sought compensation thereof from the concerned Collector in June, 2000 but were informed that under mutation No. 402 of Rakh Suthu the whole land had been shown and mutated as Khalisa Sarkar after cancellation of mutation No. 157 where under Jawala Dutt and Jagdish Chander aforesaid had taken over the land decades back. On obtaining a certified copy of said mutation, they found that the same referred to some unspecified orders of Assistant Commissioner purporting to have been passed on 07.01.1963 and Dy. Commissioner dated:
(2.) 01.1971 without any mention of the contents or substance of said orders. Aggrieved they instituted a revision petition before Financial Commissioner for correcting the irregularity committed by attestation of mutation No. 402 on 3.3.1971 which was dismissed on 27.12.2001. 2. It is to assail the dismissal order of their revision petition by Financial Commissioner, that petitioners have instituted this writ petition to seek its quashment on the ground that it was unfounded in law, by dismissing the revision petition, Financial Commissioner virtually denied rectification of the irregularity complained of and thereby failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him resulting in gross miscarriage of justice, particularly because he never tried to summon the original records wherefrom the irregularity had erupted.
(3.) IN his reply respondent No.2, which has been adopted by other respondents also as reflected by interim, order of 19.8.2004 has pleaded that Late Jawala Datt and Jagdish Chander were not heirs of deceased Nand Lal and as such the mutation No. 157 of 2008 BK was rightly cancelled resultant whereupon the land escheated to Government under mutation No.402 and as such the revision petition filed by petitioners before the Financial Commissioner was rightly dismissed and consequently thus the petitioners had no interest in compensation for the land involved. It has also been pleaded that revision petition before Financial Commissioner had been filed by petitioners after about three decades which was an additional reason for rejection thereof. During course of submissions learned counsel appearing for rival sides have reiterated the contents of their pleadings. 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.;


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