Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 582 (JK)

Haji Alam Din v. Munshi Khan

2009-11-23

A.K.Shan

body2009
1. In this case counsel for the parties are not appearing since 2.11.2004 whereas the revision petition has been filed on 2.5.2003 so the case is being disposed of on merit,as the revision petition cannot be dismissed for default of appearance. Main reason of adopting this course is on account of lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain the revision petition. 2. The facts of the case culminating in filing of the revision petition are as under:- There is a piece of land measuring 41 kanals 4 marlas under Khasra number 1382 in village Badhoon Tehsil and District Rajouri. It was in legal possession of certain persons whose names are recorded in Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1972 onwards which is , enclosed as Annexure-B with the revision petition. 3. The father of the petitioner Kayan Din was one of the occupant who died somewhere in 1973 where upon the land came to be occupied by the petitioner and his brother Mohd Yousuf, in respect of which the entry came to be made in Rabi 1973. 4. On 20.7.1996 the then Tehsildar Rajouri attested Sahat kasht mutation No:728 and recorded the name of Ali Akbar, father of the respondents as the person in possession of land w.e.f 1996 onwards. This mutation was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner Rajouri who set aside the same. There-after the father of the respondent preferred second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Jammu who set aside the order of Deputy Commissioner Rajouri and remanded the case to Tehsildar Rajouri for fresh enquiry. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Divisional Commissioner the petitioner has preferred this revision petition for setting aside the same. As per title of the revision petition, the petition has been filed under Section 21(2) of the Special Tribunal Act 1986. 6. Apparently mutation was attested by Tehsildar under the Land Revenue Act and 1st appeal was properly filed before the Deputy Commissioner Rajouri and then 2nd appeal before Divisional Commissioner Jammu. Under Section 11 of the Land Revenue Act the next appeal was to be filed before Financial Commissioner, subject to proviso to the said Section. Similarly the petitioner could have filed revision under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act before the Financial Commissioner. The Land Revenue Act has not provided any revision against the order of any Revenue Officer before this Tribunal. Similarly the petitioner could have filed revision under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act before the Financial Commissioner. The Land Revenue Act has not provided any revision against the order of any Revenue Officer before this Tribunal. It is only under Section 21(2) of the Agrarian Reforms Act that this Tribunal can entertain revision against the order of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms or order of Tehsildar or Assistant Commissioner under Agrarian Reforms Act, if the same is in respect of Evacuee or State land. The present revision petition is not against the order passed by any of the said Revenue Officer. The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 21(2) of the J&K Special Tribunal Act 1986. This concept is misconceived because there is no such Section in the J&K Tribunal Act. 7. Even presuming that there has been an error while typing the petition and writing Special Tribunal Act instead of Agrarian Reforms Act, still in the facts and circumstances of the case, no revision can be entertained by this Tribunal against the order passed by Divisional Commissioner. 8. Accordingly this revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable and is directed to be consigned to record.