JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have called in question order dated 17th March, 2021 passed by Joint Financial Commissioner [respondent No.2] in the reference titled 'Khazir Koka vs. Majid and others' and order dated 21st January, 2021 passed by Commissioner Survey and Land Records [respondent No.3]. 2. Briefly put, the relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Anantnag, for partition of land falling under Survey No.69 (7K-6M), 71(4K-9M), 72(5K10M) and 66(4K-16M) of Estate Chaki Hussan Abad Tehsil Anantnag [hereinafter referred to as the subject land]. This application was filed against one Majeed Hassan, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents. The application was entertained by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, who, vide his order dated 26th April, 2010, while issuing notice to the nonapplicants for filing objections also provided by way of interim arrangement that the parties shall not cause any interference, change in the existing revenue entries and fell trees or alienate the subject land till filing of objections. 3. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a transfer application before the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. The transfer application was entertained by the District Collector, who vide his order dated 12th June, 2014, directed the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Anantnag, to proceed in the matter after providing an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 4. It appears that when nothing was done by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Anantnag, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a transfer application before respondent No.3. The respondent No.3, vide his order dated 26th June, 2014, called upon Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Anantnag, to file para-wise reply and also directed the stay of proceedings before him. It is alleged that despite being aware of the order dated 26th June, 2014, passed by respondent No.3, the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, disposed of the application for partition in terms of Section 105 of the Land Revenue Act, Samvat, 1996 ['the Act'], by holding that the partition was not possible and, therefore, it would be appropriate for the applicant, the predecessorin-interest of the petitioners, to file a suit for possession before the competent court of law. This was done by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, vide his order dated 27th June, 2014. 5. The aforesaid order was assailed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners before respondent No.3 under Section 15 of the Act. This was done by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, vide his order dated 27th June, 2014. 5. The aforesaid order was assailed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners before respondent No.3 under Section 15 of the Act. The revision petition was accepted by respondent No.3 and vide order dated 07.12.2020, respondent No.3 proposed to set aside the impugned order passed by Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, and accordingly, made reference to respondent No.2 with his recommendation that the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, be directed to consider the partition application under Section 105 of the Act and pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties treating the disputed property as being the proprietary land of father of both the contesting parties. The file was, accordingly, sent to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, which, in turn, was assigned to Joint Financial Commissioner, Revenue, for disposal. 6. While the Joint Financial Commissioner was seized of the reference, the private respondents herein filed a review petition before respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 vide his order dated 8th January, 2021, declined to entertain the review petition on the ground that the file had been submitted to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, for confirmation and, therefore, he was not in a position to pass any order on the review petition till the orders are passed by the Financial Commissioner. In view of this, the review petition was disposed of. 7. It appears that after disposing of the review petition, the respondent No.3 again took up the disposal of review petition and vide his order dated 21st January, 2021, which is impugned in this petition, kept the order under review in abeyance. The Joint Financial Commissioner, who was seized of the reference, also passed the impugned order dated 17th March, 2021 and sent back the file to the Settlement Commissioner. These two orders are subject matter of challenge in this petition. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the view that the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the Revenue Officers, particularly respondent No.2 and 3, is far from being satisfactory. Under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, the Divisional Commissioner is empowered to call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer subordinate to him. Under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, the Divisional Commissioner is empowered to call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer subordinate to him. Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act provides that in case the Divisional Commissioner exercising revisional jurisdiction is of the opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or revised, he shall report case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. It is, thus, evident that where the Divisional Commissioner exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(2) of the Act is of the opinion that the order challenged before him should be set aside, modified or revised, he has to report the entire case with his opinion for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner can only render his opinion and propose the setting aside, modifying or revising of the impugned order to the Financial Commissioner. Final authority to approve or not to approve such opinion lies with the Financial Commissioner. 9. For facility of reference, Section 15 is reproduced as under: '15. Power to revise orders-(1) The Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer under his control. (2) The Divisional Commissioner may call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer subordinate to him. (3) If in any case in which, the Divisional Commissioner has called for a record he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or revised he shall report case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. (4) The Financial Commissioner may, in any case called for by him under sub-section (1) or reported to him under sub-section (3), pass such order as he thinks fit : Provided that, he shall not under this section pass an order reversing or modifying any proceeding or order of a subordinate officer affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard' 10. As is evident from sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act, the Financial Commissioner, in the case reported to him under sub-section (3), has to pass such order as he thinks fit. As is evident from sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act, the Financial Commissioner, in the case reported to him under sub-section (3), has to pass such order as he thinks fit. However, the Financial Commissioner shall not pass any order reversing or modifying any proceedings or order of a subordinate officer affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard. 11. Viewed thus, it is trite that once the Divisional Commissioner has submitted the case with his opinion to the Financial Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act, he becomes functous officio. Once there is no lis before him, he cannot exercise power of review. Conceding such power of review to the Divisional Commissioner in such situation may result into passing of two contradictory orders by two authorities. It is possible that the Financial Commissioner, to whom the matter is reported by the Divisional Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act, accepts the reference and confirms the decision of the Divisional Commissioner while as the Divisional Commissioner may simultaneously accept the review petition and recall its own order. It is, thus, necessary to construe the provisions of Section 13 and 15 of the Act harmoniously and any interpretation that may lead to absurd results is required to be avoided. 12. Having considered the issue in the light of provisions of Section 13 and 15 of the Act, I am of the view that once the Divisional Commissioner has referred the matter with his opinion to the Financial Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 15 and the Financial Commissioner is seized of the matter under sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act, the Divisional Commissioner does not have and cannot exercise the power of review conferred upon him under Section 13 of the Act. 13. In view of the aforesaid, I find both the orders i.e., order dated 21st January, 2021 passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 17th March, 2021 passed by respondent No.2 bad in the eye of law ad hold that the proceedings in the review application pending before the Divisional Commissioner are not maintainable and, therefore, order passed by respondent No.3 dated 21st January, 2021, is not sustainable in law. Since the order dated 17th March, 2021, passed by respondent No.2, is also bad in the eye of law, as such, the reference made by respondent No.3 to respodnentNo.2 is liable to be restored to the file of respondent No.2. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is disposed of by providing as under: (I) Order dated 21st January, 2021, passed by respondent No.3 in the review petition filed by the private respondents is quashed. The proceedings in the review petition shall terminate forthwith. (II) Order dated 17th March, 2021, passed by Joint Financial Commissioner, is quashed. The reference made by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 regarding order of Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Anantnag, dated 27th June, 2014, passed on file No.ACR/Reader/293-94 is restored to the file of respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 shall immediately and forthwith send back the file to respondent No.2. (III) The reference shall be decided by respondent No.2 in terms of Section 15(4) of the Act after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to both the parties. The petitioners as well as private respondents shall be within their rights to raise all pleas available to them and nothing said by the authorities on the subject matter in any of the proceedings shall prejudice such right of the parties in any manner. (IV) The reference shall be disposed of by respondent No.2 within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon him. Till the reference is finally decided, there shall be status quo with regard to the property which is subject matter of litigation between the parties.