Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1071 (JK)

Mohammad Afzal Rather v. State of J&K

2017-12-19

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard and perused the record. 2. Herein respondents 4 and 5, Anil Kumar and and Hira Lal, have filed three appeals before the Financial Commissioner (Rev.), J&K with the powers of Agrarian Reform Commissioner, J&K against the orders in mutation Nos. 2640 dated nil, 2647 dated 30.08.1989 and 6514 dated 22.09.2009 attested under sections 4, 7 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 respectively. On the other hand, petitioners, Mohammad Afzal Rather and Ghulam Mohammad Rather, who were the respondents in the aforementioned appeals, have filed two appeals in the same matter before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Budgam. The petitioners filed an application before the Financial Commissioner (Rev.), J&K for transferring the three appeals (supra) filed before him to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Budgam on the ground that they may be heard along with the two appeals filed by them. 3. In response to the transfer application filed by the petitioners, the respondents 4 and 5 in their objections, while resisting the transfer of the appeals filed by them before the learned Financial Commissioner (Rev), J&K made a prayer for transfer of the appeals field by the petitioners before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Budgam to the Financial Commissioner (Rev), J&K. 4. The Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 28.11.2017, while not allowing the petitioners’ request for transfer of the appeals filed before him to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, ordered that the said appeals filed before him at Jammu Bench shall continue to be heard there and transferred the appeals filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Budgam to him, to be heard at Srinagar Bench. 5. In this writ petition, petitioners challenge the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Rev), J&K dated 28.11.2017 and further seek mandamus to the Financial Commissioner to transfer the three appeals filed before him at Jammu Bench to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Budgam. 6. The view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner (Rev) J&K in his order dated 28.11.2017 in transferring the two appeals from the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Budgam to him and making aforementioned arrangement is culled out as under: “The perusal of Appeals filed by the non-applicants Anil Kumar and Hira Lal in this court at Jammu reveals that only the two persons Mohammad Afzal and Ghulam Mohammad Rather amongst 37 other person hailing from District Budgam have been arrayed as parties. Thus no question of hardship to the bulk of parties arises. On the other hand, non-applicants Anil Kumar and Hirta Lal have sought the transfer of Appeals from Budgam Court even though they have not been arrayed as parties there. However, since the cases are interlinked and based on a similar cause, it is feasible that all the Appeals be heard by a single forum to avert conflicting judgments. Further, in order to avoid the hardships to respective parties, it is in the interest of justice to hear the Appeals both at Jammu as well as at Srinagar. However, during the course of proceedings if the Court feels that cases be clubbed and heard either at Srinagar or Jammu, the appropriate course shall be adopted as per the circumstances.” 7. A plain reading of the view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner (Rev), J&K would show that all aspects of the matter, including convenience of the parties, have been taken into account in particular, it has been noticed that in the appeals filed before him only two persons, that is, petitioners herein hailing from the Budgam, have been arrayed as respondents. It is ordered that the appeals filed before him shall be heard by him at Jammu Bench and those transferred from the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Budgam shall be heard by him at Srinagar Bench. Scope has been kept open for passing appropriate orders, if it is found at a later stage that the cases are to be clubbed and heard together either at Srinagar or at Jammu. 8. It is apt to state precisely that in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Financial Commissioner has been vested with powers of Agrarian Reform Commissioner for whole of the State and in addition, district-wise powers as Agrarian Reform Commissioner have been vested on senior revenue officers, like Additional Deputy Commissioner of the respective District. A situation, where the effected parties hail from the different Districts, can well be met with by filing appeals before the Financial Commissioner, who has jurisdiction all over the State. 9. For the aforementioned, there is no merit in this writ petition and no case for showing indulgence in the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Rev), J&K is made out. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed in limine.