1. Petitioner has questioned order dated 20th May, 2000 read with the confir mation order passed by Financial Commissioner dated 24th March, and 22nd December, 2003 on the Review Petition. Petitioner has sought restraint on respon dents to record mutation in favour of private respondents. 2. It appears that mutation 99 dated 13th January, 1970 of Village Bijhama Tehsil Uri was affected in favour of Mohammad Nasir ud Din on the ground of adoption which was questioned by respondent No. 1 before the Deputy Commis sioner Baramulla and file was assigned to Additional Deputy Commissioner Baramulla, came to be allowed vide order dated 20th May, 2000 and direction was issued to Tehsildar to conduct fresh enquiry. 3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner questioned the same by the medium of revision petition before Financial Commissioner, was dismissed vide order dated 24th March, 2003, the subject matter of this writ petition. 4. It appears that case was remanded back for enquiry on the ground that the mutation was affected at the back of the respondent No. 1 and was not in tone with the mandate of Standing Order 23A. It is apt to reproduce Para 46 and 64 (a) of the Standing Order 23 A herein:- "46. Consider both possession and right, in cases of succession to a right. In deciding mutation cases, arising out of succession to a right, officers should look to two principal factors, first possession, and second right. (Both should be considered and orders about the entry to be made, passed), the true facts regarding possession being, however, shown in Kasht col umn. In cases of transfer, mutation may be ordered only on basis ofpossession.-In cases of transfer of a right, however, it is necessary to state in the order passed on the mutation, whether possession has actually been transferred on the spot. In cases of sale, mortgage, redemption of mortgage, gift, private partition, ejectment or relinquishment of Kasht by tenants, if it is found that possession has not changed, the mutation should be rejected irrespective of the fact that the parties agree to transfer possession at some future time. 64. Inheritance by adoption and daughter (a) Adoption:- If the adoption is by a registered deed, the mutation should be entered in the name of the adopted son, otherwise mutation will be entered in favour of the heirs of the deceased who hold the possession of the land.
64. Inheritance by adoption and daughter (a) Adoption:- If the adoption is by a registered deed, the mutation should be entered in the name of the adopted son, otherwise mutation will be entered in favour of the heirs of the deceased who hold the possession of the land. But if the adopted son is in cultivating possession of the land and the deed of adoption is an unregistered deed, then according to Circular No. 1 of 19th Assuj, 1953 the name of the adopted son can be entered in the mutation." 5. Concerned Tehsildar had to make the order while following the mandate of Order 23A which appears to have not been done. The order is a remand order and does not affect the rights of any party. Case has been remanded for enquiry, so it is for the Revenue Agency and respondent No. 1 to appear before Tehsildar and project their case. 6. In view of Standing Order 23A, I am of the considered view that no illegality has been committed, therefore, no interference is required. 7. This court, in series of cases, has held that when the writ jurisdiction can be invoked, obviously the case in hand is not one of such cases. In this regard reference is made to cases titled OWP No. 1364/2011 titled Abdul Rehman Dar and Ors. v. Showkat Ali Bhat & ore, OWP No. 69/2012 titled Ghulam Rasool Zargar v. State and others. 8. The writ petition therefore fails, hence dismissed.