Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 262 (JK)

Khaliq Parray v. State of J&K & Ors.

2011-05-19

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2011
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the dismissal order dated 4th of October, 2000 passed by Financial Commissioner (Revenue), in three revision petitions on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Respondents 3 to 5 have filed reply. Mr. Chesti, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 stated that the dispute is between the petitioner and the private respondents 3 to 5 and has chosen not to file reply. 3. Tehsildar Consolidation Pattan-respondent No. 2, passed mutation Nos.436, 1533 and 1538. Thereafter, writ petitioner questioned the said mutations by the medium of revision petition before the Financial Commissioner came to be rejected. By the medium of this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the said order mainly on the ground that mutation orders came to be passed at his back, he has not executed any gift deed in favour of the private respondents, and has not made any statement during the mutation proceedings. He has denied execution of document dated 1st of January, 1998. 4. Private respondents have denied all the averments contained in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner has orally gifted away landed property to Gulla Allai-grandson, Mst. Gulshan Akhtar and Mst. Raja-grand daughters are in possession, enjoying the usufructs and even the said fact was admitted by the writ petitioner before the revenue authority. 5. While addressing, learned counsel for the parties admitted that a civil suit is pending inter-se parties regarding the same subject matter which was initially pending before the Court of Sub-Judge, Pattan, and was transferred to the court of Sub-Judge, Srinagar, and is still on the dockets of the said court. 6. Mutations do not confer title but are only drawn and attested for the purposes of collecting rent etc. 7. It is the domain of the revenue authorities to determine the issue and pass mutation orders came to be determined by the said authorities. It is beaten law of the land that the writ Court cannot interfere with the findings unless perverse, illegal, without jurisdiction or is against the basic principles of law. 7. It is the domain of the revenue authorities to determine the issue and pass mutation orders came to be determined by the said authorities. It is beaten law of the land that the writ Court cannot interfere with the findings unless perverse, illegal, without jurisdiction or is against the basic principles of law. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment titled Jugal Kishore v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 1989 SC159 and judgments delivered by this Court in cases (OWP) No. 50/2003 titled Om Parkash v. State and others, decided on 24.09.2010 and OWP No. 540/2008 titled Sandhoor Singh v. J & K Special Tribunal and others, decided on 29.07.2010. 8. Admittedly disputed questions of fact are involved cannot be gone into by the writ court. 9. In the given circumstances, the writ petition merits to be dismissed which as such is dismissed along with all connected CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.