RAJA Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-2006-11-31
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on November 14,2006

RAJA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) PETITIONER has sought indulgence of this Court for quashing the order dated 31st October, 1996 contained in Annexure -P2 to this writ petition issued by respondent No.3 and also order dated 4th September, 2002 contained in Annexure -P3, passed by respondent No.2 on the grounds taken in the writ petition.
(2.) IT is necessary to notice the facts of the case herein; Gaffar Sheikh S/O Abdullah Sheikh R/O Haji, Sonawari passed away and accordingly a mutation of inheritance -mutation No.2087 dated 5th November, 1994 came to be passed in favour of Mst. Hajra as khana -nisheed daughter and and Raja and Habla as Khana -beerun daughters of Gaffar Sheikh whereby and whereunder two shares were recorded in favour of Hajra and one share each in favour of Raja and Habla. Feeling aggrieved of the said mutation order Mst. Hajra Khananishecn daughter filed a revision petition against the said mutation order before Additional Commissioner. Additional Commissioner made recommendation to Financial Commissioner to set aside the impugned order and for issuance of directions to attest the mutation of inheritance in favour of Mst. Hajra, khananisheen daughter in exclusion to Raja and Habla khanabeerun daughters vide order dated 31st October, 1996 and accordingly reference came up before Financial Commissioner and came to be accepted vide order dated 4th September, 2002.
(3.) IT appears that writ petitioner and respondent No.5 were condemned unheard. Both the revenue officers have not followed the procedure warranted under law. It is necessary to notice Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, for short Act, herein: - "15. Power to revise orders................. [(4) The Financial Commissioner may, in any case called for by him under sub -section (1) or reported to him under sub -section (3), pass such order as he thinks fit: Provided that, he shall not under this section pass an order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of a subordinate officer affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard.] This provision of law mandates that when an order of a subordinate Revenue Officer is to be reversed or modified the affected person(s) are to be given an opportunity of being heard. Both the revenue officers have passed the orders in breach and violation of this provision of law and merit to be quashed.;


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