Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 471 (JK)

Sona Wani & Ors v. Financial Commr. & Anr.

2011-09-03

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2011
By the medium of this writ petition, petitioner has questioned and sought quashment of order dated 9th of April, 2001, passed by Financial Commissioner J&K Government-respondent No. 1 in respect of land falling under survey No. 1048 situated at village Malmoha Tehsil Pattan on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Precisely the case of the petitioner is that an application was moved before Settlement Officer Consolidation of Holdings who passed order dated 29.09.1997 in favour of private respondents, was subject matter of appeal before Director Consolidation Appeals which was filed by present petitioner, came to be allowed vide order dated 03-07-1999 and impugned order set-aside with the direction to the settlement officer consolidation to conduct enquiry. Private respondents questioned the order by the medium of appeal. 3. In that appeal an order was passed on 24th of April, 2000 which was questioned by the petitioner by the medium of revision petition No. 19/AP-FC instituted on 9th of May, 2000 and decided on 29th of September, 2000 and revision petition came to be dismissed. A review petition was filed by the private respondents and questioned the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. 4. The review petition came to be dismissed and thereafter, it appears that, an application in terms of Section 8 of Land Revenue Act had been preferred before Financial Commissioner with the allegation that the records have been forged and rectification of all such entries was sought. Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that records have been fabricated and while allowing the application in terms of Section 8 of Land Revenue Act, directed the authorities to rectify the entries and to report compliance. It is this order which is questioned in this writ petition. 5. The order has been passed in terms of Section 8 of Land Revenue Act by the Financial Commissioner, because he has, in general, control over all revenue officers, besides the general superintendence. It is apt to reproduce Section 8 of Land Revenue Act herein:- “8. Control (1) The general superintendence and control over all Revenue offices shall be vested with the Government. (2) The (Divisional Commissioner), the Collectors and Assistant Collectors shall be subordinate to and under the control of the Financial Commissioner. (3) Subject to the control of the Financial Commissioner, the Collectors shall be subordinate to and under the control of a (Divisional Commissioner). (2) The (Divisional Commissioner), the Collectors and Assistant Collectors shall be subordinate to and under the control of the Financial Commissioner. (3) Subject to the control of the Financial Commissioner, the Collectors shall be subordinate to and under the control of a (Divisional Commissioner). (4) Subject as aforesaid and to the control of the (Divisional Commissioner,) all other Revenue officers in his district shall be subordinate to and under the control of a Collector). (5) Subject as aforesaid and to the control of Collector, an Assistant Colector of the second class shall be subordinate to and under the control of an Assistant Collector of the first class).” 6. The order of similar type was questioned in a writ petition before this court, in the case titled as Gh. Rasool Dar and others versus State and others reported as 2004 (2) JKJ 43 and the same was dismissed while holding the order passed under Section 8 cannot be made the subject matter of the writ petition. However, the aggrieved can seek appropriate remedy. 7. Having glance of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to petitioner to seek appropriate remedy available under law. 8. The writ petition, as such, is dismissed along with all CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.