TASHI RABSTAN,J. - (1.) Petitioners pray for setting aside orders dated 28.04.1980 passed by Tehsildar, Udhampur and 23.09.2008 passed by Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu. In addition, they pray for a direction to attest the mutation of the land, forming subject matter of mutation No.1268 of Village Barola, Tehsil Udhampur.
(2.) The facts briefly stated in the petition are that one Dina S/o Sona was owner of land situated in village Barola Tehsil Udhampur. After his demise, mutation No.1268 was attested on 28.04.1980 in favour of respondent No.2 on the basis he being adopted son of deceased Dina. Against the said mutation, an appeal was filed by the petitioner No.2 and one Faqir, before Deputy Commissioner Udhmapur, who vide order dated 30.04.1981 set aside the mutation by holding that adoption was inconsistent with provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. A revision against the order dated 30.04.1981 was filed by respondent No.2 before Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, who reported the case to Financial Commissioner for its acceptance with his opinion that the Rule 64 of Standing Order No.23-A clearly provides that if adoption is by a registered document, then mutation should be entered in the name of adopted son and revenue authority cannot decide the issue of adoption deed, in as much as it is the Civil Court to decide as to whether the deed is bad in law or not. The revision was transferred to Joint Financial Commissioner, Jammu who after hearing the parties vide order dated 20.04.1993, rejected the recommendations made by Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and upheld order of Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur. He also directed Tehsildar Settlement, Udhampur to conduct denovo enquiry and pass orders strictly under rules. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed OWP No.273/1995 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2002 by setting aside order dated 20.04.1993 passed by Joint Financial Commissioner, Jammu. As a consequence, the Financial Commissioner, Jammu vide order dated 23.09.2008 accepted the reference made by Divisional Commissioner, Jammu to the effect revenue courts cannot adjudicate upon the validity of adoption deed and set aside the order of Deputy Commissioner Udhampur whereas mutation was upheld. It is this order of which petitioner is aggrieved to knock the doors of this Court with writ petition in hand.
(3.) On notice, respondent No.2 has filed the objections, contending therein that he was adopted by one Dina Nath as his son vide adoption deed dated 31.05.1971 duly registered by Sub Registrar, Udhampur which was challenged by petitioner's father in a civil suit, but same was dismissed on 14.01.1974. It is further contended that on the directions issued by this Court in OWP No.273/1975, respondent No.1 has rightly accepted the reference made by Divisional Commissioner, Jammu by stating that issue of adoption cannot be dealt with by the revenue courts/authorities more particularly when it was dealt by a civil court by dismissing the same. It is also contended that mutation of inheritance No.1268 dated 28.04.1980 with regard to property of deceased Dina Nath was rightly attested in favour of respondent No.2 which too was finally upheld by respondent No.1. Therefore, according to respondent No.2, order impugned does not suffer from any illegality.;