Per Massodi, J Letters Patent Appeal, on hand, is directed against Writ Court judgment dated 06.09.2001 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed appellants writ petition titled Krishan Lal Kapai v. Financial Commissioner, J&K Government and ors. (OWP no. 244/1999) and upheld the order of Financial Commissioner dated 17.02.1999 in Civil Revision No.113/1997, setting aside order of Tehsildar dated 23.12.1991 on mutation No. 86 of 1991, estate Akhnoor. The Letters Patent Appeal arises against the following factual backdrop:- 2. The appellants ancestors, a long time back constructed a temple on their proprietary land measuring 4 Marlas and comprising a part of Khasra No. 14, Village Akhnoor. The Temple was named Mandir Shri Laxmi Narayan Ji Maharaj, Akhnoor. They appointed a Pujari to perform Puja and maintain the Temple. Shri Madan Lal Beragi respondent no. 4 in the present appeal, is present Manager of the Temple. The rest of the land on spot measuring 06 Kanals and 09 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos. 14/min and 15, Village Akhnoor, according to the appellants after construction of temple, continued to be in possession of the appellants ancestors, their descendants and is now in their possession. Of late a dispute has arisen between the appellants and respondent no. 4 Manager, Mandir Shri Laxmi Narayan Ji Maharaj, Akhnoor, as regards the land comprising Survey Nos. 14 Min and 15 measuring 06 kanals and 09 marlas. However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Temple was constructed on a plot measuring 04 Marlas out of Survey No. 14 and that said area of land got vested in the Temple. 3. Tehsildar, Akhnoor on 07.11.1981 passed mutation order no. 79 in respect of land measuring 06 Kanals 09 Marlas comprising khasra no. 14 and 15, Village Akhnoor in favour of respondent no. 4. The mutation order was questioned by the appellant no. 1 in Revision being No. 361/DLR/AP/86-87 before Director, Land Records with powers of Divisional Commissioner (Appeals) Jammu. The case set up was that the land comprising Survey Nos. 14 and 15 except 04 Marlas out of Survey No. 14 was in ownership of the appellant and his collaterals and that the mutation order No. 79, therefore, was bad in law and liable to be dismissed. The Revision Petition was accepted on 16.05.1987 and the mutation order impugned set aside. 14 and 15 except 04 Marlas out of Survey No. 14 was in ownership of the appellant and his collaterals and that the mutation order No. 79, therefore, was bad in law and liable to be dismissed. The Revision Petition was accepted on 16.05.1987 and the mutation order impugned set aside. The case was remanded to Tehsildar, Akhnoor for fresh disposal and recommendation made accordingly to the Financial Commissioner. 4. The Financial Commissioner on 06.12.1988 recorded agreement with the recommendations made by Director, Land Records with the powers of Divisional Commissioner (Appeals.), Jammu. The mutation order No. 79 was, accordingly, set aside. 5. Tehsildar, Akhnoor, in compliance of the orders dated 16.05.1987 & 06.12.1988, accorded fresh consideration to the matter and on 23.12.1991, attested mutation Order No. 86 in respect of land in dispute. Respondent no. 4 assailed mutation order no. 86 in appeal (treated as Revision) before Additional Commissioner, Jammu with powers of Divisional Commissioner (Appeals), Jammu. The Revisional Authority on 10.09.1996 submitted the matter to the Financial Commissioner with the recommendation that respondent no. 4 may continue to be Manager of the Mandir and un-built part of the land be allowed to remain in possession of the present appellants. 6. It appears that the appellants and respondent no. 4 presented a compromise deed before the Financial Commissioner, whereby appellants abandoned all rights on the land comprising Khasra No. 14 min measuring 02 Kanals and 9 = Marlas and Khasra No. 15 to the extent of 10 Marlas in favour of the appellants. The appellants on their part surrendered all rights as regards land comprising Khasra no. 15 to the extent of 05 Marlas in favour of respondent no. 4. The Financial Commissioner ignoring the compromise deed executed by the parties (respondent no. 4 with husband of appellant no. 2 and father of appellants 3, 4 and appellant n. 4) acted upon by the parties and accepted by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu in eviction case, proceeded to deal with the matter on merits. The Financial Commissioner on going through the record arrived at the following conclusions:- (i) That the land comprising Khasra no. 14 measuring 04 Kanals and 19 Marlas and Khasra no. 15 measuring 01 Kanal and 10 Marlas in Jamabandi of 1967-1968, is recorded to be in ownership of Shiv Saran father of appellant no. 1, and occupation of Baba Lal Dass. 14 measuring 04 Kanals and 19 Marlas and Khasra no. 15 measuring 01 Kanal and 10 Marlas in Jamabandi of 1967-1968, is recorded to be in ownership of Shiv Saran father of appellant no. 1, and occupation of Baba Lal Dass. (ii) That an area measuring 04 Marlas out of Khasra no. 14 was recorded in the name of Temple. (iii) That the land comprising Khasra no. 14 was recorded as Gher Mumkin Talab while land comprising Khasra No. 15 was recorded as Hail and in cultivating possession of Baba Lal Dass, as protected tenant. (iv) That on demise of Baba Lal Dass in the year 1979, possession over the land in dispute was recorded as that of respondent no. 4 as Chela of Baba Lal Dass. (v) That as the land comprising Khasra No. 14 is recorded as Gher Mumkin Talab , it is to be presumed that the land was used for common purpose and was never in cultivating possession of either the owners i.e. appellants or the respondent no. 4 and the provisions of Common Land Act would apply to land comprising Khasra No. 14, even if, recorded as proprietary land in the revenue record. (v) That Khasra no. 15 was recorded to be in cultivating possession of Baba Lal Dass in Jamabandi of 1967-1968 and continues to be so recorded in the name of respondent no. 4. (vi) That the land comprising Khasra no. 14, even if, taken to be proprietary land of the appellants, they having been not in its possession, it escheated to the State under the provisions of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and the appellants have lost their rights over the land recorded as Gher Mumkin Talab and presumed to have been used for public purpose. (vii) That even otherwise the land comprising Khasra Nos. 14 and 15 having been donated through Sankalp to the Temple and recorded in occupation of Baba Lal Dass, the appellants rights over the land stood extinguished. 7. The Financial Commissioner, accordingly, set aside mutation order No. 86 vide order dated 17.02.1999 and directed the land comprising Khasra Nos. 14 and 15 being appurtenant to the temple to be regulated as such. 8. The order of Financial Commissioner dated 17.02.1999, as already pointed out, was assailed by the appellants in writ petition being OWP no. 7. The Financial Commissioner, accordingly, set aside mutation order No. 86 vide order dated 17.02.1999 and directed the land comprising Khasra Nos. 14 and 15 being appurtenant to the temple to be regulated as such. 8. The order of Financial Commissioner dated 17.02.1999, as already pointed out, was assailed by the appellants in writ petition being OWP no. 244/1999 on the grounds that the land in dispute was erroneously taken to have been donated by the appellants ancestors to the Temple; that there was no evidence before the Financial Commissioner to arrive at such a conclusion; that the revenue record did not indicate the land to be common land as held by the Financial Commissioner. It was further pleaded that the order impugned in the petition ran contrary to the findings recorded by the Financial Commissioner in order dated 06.12.1988. The appellants insisted that land comprising Khasra Nos. 14 and 15 measuring 06 Kanals 09 Marlas was held by the Financial Commissioner in the order dated 06.12.1988 to be proprietary land of Shri Shiv Saran ancestor of the appellants and Temple to have been constructed on the proprietary land. 9. The Writ Court recorded agreement with the findings returned by the Fiancnial Commissioner to the effect that land comprising Khasra No. 14 was to be treated as common land within meaning of Common Land Act and, therefore, the appellants ceased to have any right over the land. The Writ Court went a step further by holding that whole of the land comprising Khasra Nos. 14 and 15 is to be presumed to have vested in the Temple. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed and the order of Financial Commissioner dated 17.02.1999 upheld. 10. The appellants question the Writ Court judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal, on the grounds detailed in the memo of appeal. It is pleaded that Writ Court has not appreciated the case projected by the appellants in the writ petition, in right perspective. The appellants insist that the land comprising Khasra Nos. 14 & 15 is their proprietary land with the only exception of an area of 04 Marlas out of Khasra No. 14 on which their ancestors constructed the Temple. The appellants question the power of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu to appoint respondent no. 4 as Manager of the Temple on the ground that temple has been constructed on private proprietary land. 14 & 15 is their proprietary land with the only exception of an area of 04 Marlas out of Khasra No. 14 on which their ancestors constructed the Temple. The appellants question the power of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu to appoint respondent no. 4 as Manager of the Temple on the ground that temple has been constructed on private proprietary land. They also dispute competence of respondent no. 4 to act as Manager of the Temple on the ground that respondent no. 4 is a married person. 11. We have gone through the memo of appeal and the record available on the file and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. The Financial Commissioner, as a closer look at order dated 17.02.1999 would reveal, has while dealing with the recommendation made by the Additional Commissioner, Jammu with powers of Divisional Commissioner (Appeals), travelled much beyond the contours of controversy between the parties. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that the dispute between the parties related to the area of land comprising Khasra No. 14 - 04 Kanals 19 Marlas and Khasra No. 15 01 Kanal 10 Marlas situated at Akhnoor. The owners of the land appellants herein, insisted that their ancestor had constructed Temple on an area measuring 04 Marlas out of Khasra No. 14 (05 Kanals 03 Marlas) and that rest of the land i.e. Khasra No. 14 04 Kanals 19 Marlas (05 K 03 M 04 M) and Khasra No. 15 continued to be their proprietary land. The Manager of the Temple, on the other hand, insisted that whole of the land measuring 06 Kanals and 03 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos. 14 and 15 was donated by Sankalp by appellants ancestors in favour of the Temple and that the whole land was in his possession. Tehsildar, Akhnoor on 23.12.1991 attested mutation no. 86 in favour of the appellants-accepting their stand. Earlier Tehsildar, Akhnoor vide order dated 07.11.1981 passed mutation order no. 79 in favour of respondent no. 4. The mutation order was, however, set aside, matter directed to be considered afresh whereupon mutation order no. 86 was passed. The Additional Commissioner, Jammu with the powers of Divisional Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing of the Revision Petition tried to maintain a balance and accept appellants rights over the land measuring 06 Kanals 09 Marlas and that of respondent no. 4. The mutation order was, however, set aside, matter directed to be considered afresh whereupon mutation order no. 86 was passed. The Additional Commissioner, Jammu with the powers of Divisional Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing of the Revision Petition tried to maintain a balance and accept appellants rights over the land measuring 06 Kanals 09 Marlas and that of respondent no. 4 over the 04 Marlas with the right of manage the affairs of the Temple. The Financial Commissioner instead of accepting or rejecting the recommendation made by the Additional Commissioner, Jammu with the powers of Divisional Commissioner (Appeals), allowed herself to be dragged into discussion, not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and alien to the pleadings and record. 13. It was nobody s case before the Financial Commissioner that the land comprising Survey No. 14 was common land and, therefore, governed by Common Land s Act or that the land got escheated to the State in wake of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. The Financial Commissioner, nonetheless, looked into these aspects of the matter, taking the parties unawares. It needs no emphasis that any Court, Tribunal or Authority, has to confine itself to the case set up before it. In case, the Court, Tribunal or Authority is of the opinion that something not pleaded would be relevant to the disposal of the matter, it is expected to make parties aware of such aspect of the case, so that they have an opportunity to project their stand vis a vis such aspect of the case. Learned Financial Commissioner, while dealing with the matter jumped from one assumption to another assumption though, that too without any material on record, to reach the conclusion that the appellants had lost all rights over the land in dispute. In the process, learned Financial Commissioner lost sight of conflicting and contradictory presumptions made by her. In the first place, the Financial Commissioner proceeding on the assumption that in rural areas a Temple would be always constructed in vicinity of a water body concluded that the land comprising Khasra No. 14 must have been a water body or Talab and, therefore, incapable of having been in cultivating possession of either of the parties. There was no evidence before the Financial Commissioner nor was ever pleaded that the land comprising Khasra No. 14 was a water body. There was no evidence before the Financial Commissioner nor was ever pleaded that the land comprising Khasra No. 14 was a water body. The next assumption made was that the land in question, in the said background, was recorded as Gher Mumkin Talab . Learned Financial Commissioner next rushed to the conclusion that the land comprising Khasra no. 14 was common land within meaning of Common Land Act, though, it was recorded as proprietary land in the revenue record. It was next held that land comprising Khasra No. 14 as well as 15 had escheated to the State under the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 as the land comprising Khasra No. 15 was not in cultivating possession of the appellants in the year 1971 and the land comprising Khasra No. 14 was used for public purpose and not in possession of either of the parties. Learned Financial Commissioner, oblivious to the aforesaid findings proceeded to hold that whole of the land comprising Khasra Nos. 14 and 15 was donated by the appellants through a Sankalp to the Temple and the appellants had relinquished their rights in favour of the Temple. The next conclusion drawn was that there was no property to be regulated by succession. Unmindful of the observations that the land comprising Khasra Nos. 14 and 15 go escheated to the State, the Financial Commissioner, observed that the land comprising Khasra Nos. 14 and 15 being appurtenant to the Temple would be regulated as such. The Financial Commissioner s order dated 17.02.1999, therefore, does not lead one anywhere. 14. Whether proprietary land can be treated as Common Land within meaning of J&K Common Land (Regulations) Act; whether the very fact that the land in recorded as proprietary land in the revenue records would belie an inference that the land is Common Land within meaning of J&K Common Land (Regulations) Act; whether such land can be taken to be Common Land , and whether land comprising Survey No. 15 would fall within purview of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, are the questions that have been left unaddressed and would have been better dealt with had the parties been given an opportunity to put forth their stand. The order dated 17.02.1999, therefore, is a bundle of contradictions, destined to fail under their own wait. 15. The order dated 17.02.1999, therefore, is a bundle of contradictions, destined to fail under their own wait. 15. Learned Writ Court has not appreciated the case set up by the appellants to question the order of Financial Commissioner and has not given due weightage to the grounds urged, touching factual and legal aspects of the matter while disposing of the writ petition. The matter has been dealt with in a superficial manner without going to the core of controversy. It remained to be appreciated that learned Financial Commissioner tried to carve out a new case not projected by either of the parties and while doing so ignored the findings returned by his predecessor in office while dealing with earlier revision petition. It has also not been appreciated that the presumptions drawn by the Financial Commissioner are either erroneous or without any supporting material or contradicting each other. Learned Single Judge has not appreciated that the grounds urged by the appellants to assail the order of Financial Commissioner dated 17.02.1999, merited to be accepted and the order set aside. 16. For the reasons discussed, we find merit in appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment of Single Judge dated 06.09.2001 is set aside and writ petition allowed. Resultantly, the order of Financial Commissioner dated 17.02.1999, setting aside mutation order No. 86 dated 23.12.1991 passed by Tehsildar Akhnoor, is set side. Financial Commissioner, Jammu shall deal with the matter afresh after hearing the parties. The parties to appear before the Financial Commissioner, Jammu on 17.02.2014. ____________