Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 305 (JK)

Mohammad Ayoub Bhat v. State

2018-05-16

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. In view of the order which this Court proposes to pass official respondents are not required to be put on notice. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners claiming to be the joint owners in possession of land measuring 2 marlas falling under Survey No.3455/1392, 2 marlas under survey No.3456/1392, 12 marlas under survey No.3678/3455/1392, 2 marlas under survey No.3679/3455/1392, 1 kanal and 8.5 marlas under survey No.3680/3455/1392 and 1 kanal 12.5 marlas under survey No.3680/3455/1392 situated at Verinag Tehsil Dooru District Anantnag filed a suit for correction of entries under Section 32 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act before the Collector, Land Revenue, Anantnag with respect to land measuring 1 kanal 12.5 marlas falling under Survey No.3680/3455/1392 situated at Verinag, Dooru. The Collector, Land Revenue (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Anantnag vide its order dated 30.04.2011 allowed the suit and directed the concerned revenue officials to effect necessary corrections in the impugned revenue entries. The father of respondent No.7, Mr. Amma Bhat, challenged the order of Collector, Land Revenue (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Anantnag dated 30.04.2011 by way of revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir. The revision petition was accepted by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir who vide his order dated 10.03.2012 referred the decision for confirmation by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K. 4. The matter was considered by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) who vide its order dated 18.04.2018 accepted the reference made by the Divisional Commissioner and set aside the order of Collector, Land Revenue (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Anantnag dated 30.04.2011 and remanded the matter to Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag with certain directions. For facility of reference paragraph Nos. 8 & 9 of the order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) dated 18.04.2018 are reproduced hereunder :- “8. Thus, for the reasons enumerated hereinabove, the reference of the court below is accepted and the order dated 30.4.2011 of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag is set aside. Similarly, the Revision petition filed against the order dated 28.3.2012 of Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir is accepted and the order impugned is set aside. 9. The matter is remanded to Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag who shall first ascertain as to entries in which records (Jamabandi or Girdawari) are to be rectified and pass orders accordingly after hearing the parties. Similarly, the Revision petition filed against the order dated 28.3.2012 of Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir is accepted and the order impugned is set aside. 9. The matter is remanded to Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag who shall first ascertain as to entries in which records (Jamabandi or Girdawari) are to be rectified and pass orders accordingly after hearing the parties. Parties are directed to appear before Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag on 02.05.2018 and till then status quo on spot as well as on records shall continue. The party aggrieved of the orders passed on mutation No.2667 of village Verinag Tehsil Dooru, attested under Section 6 of Agrarian Reforms Act, can challenge the said mutation, if so chosen, before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag as all Additional Deputy Commissioners have been vested with the powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms under Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.” 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 18.04.2018, impugned in this petition, does not call for any interference. 5. Admittedly, the order passed by the Collector, Land Revenue (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Anantnag on 30.04.2011 directing correction of entries was an ex-parte order and no notice of the proceedings had been given to the private respondents herein. The same was, thus, clearly in violation of the procedure laid down in Standing Order-22. The Girdwari entries could not have been corrected to the prejudice of the private respondents without putting them to notice and without affording them adequate opportunity of being heard. The order passed by the Collector, Land Revenue (Additional Deputy Commissioner) Anantnag dated 30.04.2011 is, therefore, nullity. 6. The Divisional Commissioner committed no error in recommending setting aside of the aforesaid order nor did the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) committed any error of law while accepting the revision petition and setting aside the order of the Collector, Land Revenue (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Anantnag. 7. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) dated 18.04.2018, impugned in this petition, was the correct order that could have been passed in the matter. 7. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) dated 18.04.2018, impugned in this petition, was the correct order that could have been passed in the matter. The Financial Commissioner, therefore, correctly set aside the order of the Collector, Land Revenue (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Anantnag and remanded the case back to the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag to hold proper enquiry into the matter and decide as to whether any entry in the Girdawari or record of rights is required to be rectified or not. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag may not be in a position to decide the issue as the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) has directed the parties to maintain status quo on spot as well as on records. The apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is without any basis. The Deputy Commissioner, on remand, would be obliged to decide the suit of the petitioners after providing opportunity of being heard to all the aggrieved parties including the private respondents and then decide as to whether any entry either in Jamabandi or Girdawari is required to be rectified or not. Till such order is passed, the position on records viz. the entries impugned is required to be maintained. This is how the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) is required to be understood. I also do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) directing maintenance of status quo on spot till the issue raised by the petitioners in the suit is decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. 9. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition hence same is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag on 04.06.2018.