ORDER : 1. The petitioners through the medium of the present writ petition has sought quashment of the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and also order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, in appeal by invoking powers under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution of India, besides, seeking a direction against the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession and occupation of the petitioners qua the land falling under survey No.41 situated at Laripora Pahalgam, Anantnag. 2. The subject of the dispute in the present litigation is the land measuring 3K 7M and 3 Sirsai covered under khasra No.41 of estate Laripora Tehsil Pahalgam, which through mutation No.2282 dated 25.01.2016 has been mutated in the name of petitioners on the basis of a registered sale deed. The said mutation came to be challenged by the respondents before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag who vide order dated 19.06.2019 set aside the same by holding it violative of the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, and also that the respondents having deceived the said court and managed to get the land in favour of Mushtaq Ahmad Din and Farooq Ahmad Din. The petitioners challenged the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner Anantnag, by way of a Revision Petition before the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir who vide a reference has recommended to set aside the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner Anantnag by holding that the Additional Deputy Commissioner has passed the order without jurisdiction. The parties were put to notice by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) exercising powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, who appeared through their respective counsels. During the course of proceedings, the parties placed on record a compromise deed/Memorandum of agreement whereunder it was mentioned that the parties have amicably settled the issue amongst themselves. 3. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the land measuring 05K 01 M under khasra No.41 in the ownership of one Mohammad and others which has been alienated by Lasoo through a sale deed registered by Sub Registrar Anantnag on 20.05.1962 in favour of the predecessors of the respondents. Mutation No.430 dated 26.04.1968 has been attested in this regard. Thereafter, the said land has been mutated in the name of the above said Lasoo under section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, through Mutation Nos. 812 & 1049 respectively. Mutation No.430 dated 26.04.1968 has been attested in this regard. Thereafter, the said land has been mutated in the name of the above said Lasoo under section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, through Mutation Nos. 812 & 1049 respectively. A challenge to the mutation 1049 was put to by the respondents before Additional Dy. Commissioner Anantnag arraying the successors of Lassoo as respondents. However, during the pendency of the appeal the respondents therein managed a sale deed for land measuring 03K 07M 3 Sirsai in favour of the petitioners therein, on the basis of which mutation No.2282 has been attested which is the subject of challenge before Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J&K. Another mutation, bearing No. 2295, which too was based on sale deed for land measuring 01K 13M 6 Sirsai has been attested in favour of the mother of the petitioner No.1, the vendor being one of the sons of Lasoo. 4. The record further reveals that the earlier vendees (respondents herein/ their predecessor) had challenged the mutation attested under section 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act, by way of an appeal before the Addl. Dy. Commissioner Anantnag, which appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2022, meaning thereby that the said vendees have lost the right over the land which had accrued to them in 1962. During the pendency of appeal before Additional Dy. Commissioner Anantnag, the beneficiaries of section 4/8 mutations transferred the land to the petitioners herein through a registered sale deed followed by attestation of mutation No.2282 dated 25.01.2016. The earlier vendees again approached the court of Addl. Dy. Commissioner Anantnag against mutation 2282 and the said court vide order dated 19.06.2019 set aside the said mutation on the grounds of violation of the Agrarian Reforms Act, which order of Addl. Dy. Commissioner now has been recommended by the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir to be set aside. The land had vested in the vendors (who alienated it in favour of the present petitioners) under section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, and at the relevant point of time, Section 28-A of the said Act (now substituted) clearly provided that (i) no person who is vested with ownership rights in land under this Act, shall not transfer the land or rights therein in any manner whatsoever to any person other than the Government of Jammu & Kashmir. 5. 5. It is also provided therein that “any transfer of land or rights therein made in contravention of sub section (i) shall be null and void. The person who has contravened the provisions of sub-section (i) shall after being given an opportunity of being heard, be dispossessed of such land by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar and the land shall vest in the State and shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of section 15.” 6. The finding has been recorded by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) that the Additional Dy. Commissioner Anantnag, has thus rightly appreciated the law which was applicable at the relevant point of time. The Financial Commissioner while rejecting the reference has observed that the revenue extracts on the basis of which sale deeds have been registered in favour of the petitioners have been obtained during the pendency of appeal before Additional Dy. Commissioner and the transaction has thus its genesis based on fraud. The cognizance of this aspect of the case has also been taken by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag who vide order dated 31.05.2016 has withdrawn the earlier order dated 16.12.2015 whereunder on the application of one Mohammad Abdullah Bhat (beneficiary of section 8 mutation/respondent 2 in the appeal before Addl. Dy. Commissioner), the Addl. Dy. Commissioner had held that there was no case pending regarding the subject matter concerning land measuring 5K 1M falling under khasra No.41 of estate Laripora Tehsil Pahalgam. The Add. Dy. Commissioner had further directed the Tehsildar vide order dated 31.05.2016 to enquire into the matter keeping in view the records and furnish a detailed report within one month. 7. The learned Financial Commissioner while rejecting the reference vide order impugned dated 23.06.2023 has held that the land which is subject matter of the dispute has not only been transferred in violation of provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act but also the revenue extracts on the basis of which the sale deed had been registered, have been obtained through fraud and deceitful means. The court below has failed to take cognizance of this aspect of the case, rather has recommended to set aside the order of Addl. Dy. Commissioner by holding that a mutation based on sale deed cannot be interfered with. It will be relevant to mention here that the High Court of J&K and Ladakh in case titled “Mst. The court below has failed to take cognizance of this aspect of the case, rather has recommended to set aside the order of Addl. Dy. Commissioner by holding that a mutation based on sale deed cannot be interfered with. It will be relevant to mention here that the High Court of J&K and Ladakh in case titled “Mst. Jana vs. State of J&K and Ors decided on 23.09.2021 has held as under: “The attestation of mutation at the back of these persons vitiates the mutation. That apart whenever Revenue officer entrusted with the job of attesting mutation take a particular mutation for attestation on the basis of a testamentary disposition or gift deed etc, he is obliged to at least find out as to whether such instrument is, on the face of it, in consonance with law. He cannot be blindly accept the document and attest mutation and enquiry though brief, is required to be made in the matter to find out the prima facie validity of the document”. 8. The learned Financial Commissioner vide order impugned has also discussed the locus of respondents to make the compromise qua the land with the petitioners more particularly when the former stand divested of their rights through vesting of land and attestation of mutations in the name of tenants under section 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act which mutations also have been upheld by the Addl. Dy. Commissioner Anantnag vide order dated 08.08.2022. The learned Financial Commissioner, after hearing at length both rival counsel for the parties, has recorded the finding that the compromise is not in consonance with the law and cannot be acceded to and accordingly has held that the reference of the court below not being a reasoned one by rejecting the same and upholding the order of Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Anantnag. As a necessary corollary the mutation nos. 2282 and 2295 which has been attested in respect of land measuring 05 K -01 M under khasra No. 41, were set aside because the aforesaid instruments upon which they were based, were in violation of the statute. Accordingly, the learned Financial Commissioner was of the view that in pursuance of section 28-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act, the land is escheated to State and the Dy. Commissioner was directed to take the land under custody on behalf of the State by reporting compliance forthwith. Accordingly, the learned Financial Commissioner was of the view that in pursuance of section 28-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act, the land is escheated to State and the Dy. Commissioner was directed to take the land under custody on behalf of the State by reporting compliance forthwith. The Financial Commissioner further directed the concerned Deputy Commissioner to enquire into the fraud committed by the officials within one month and copy of the order was sent to Crime Branch for taking due cognizance in the matter. Consequently, the interim orders were vacated by the learned Financial Commissioner by virtue of order mentioned supra. 9. The learned senior Counsel Mr. Altaf Hussain Naik, who vehemently argued that the respondent No.1 has not appreciated the controversy in its real perspective and has gone beyond jurisdiction as he has not kept himself within contours of the recommendations so made by the learned Divisional Commissioner. He has further submitted that with respect to Mutation No.2295 there has been no challenge nor the same has been in controversy before the Divisional Commissioner and thus, the Financial Commissioner has no jurisdiction to make any observation with respect to the aforesaid mutation which has not been in challenge in the appeal and accordingly, sought quashment of the order impugned. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.1 while passing the order impugned, was not sure whether he is exercising the power under Land Revenue Act or under Agrarian Reforms Act, though under the Land Revenue Act, he has the power of revision but under the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, he is vested with no powers of revision. The learned counsel further argued that the mutation in favour of the petitioners had been made by the Land Revenue Officers under provisions of Land Revenue Act, and not under the Agrarian Reforms Act. He further submits that the Addl. Dy. Commissioner while passing order dated 19.06.2019 has set aside the mutation made under Land Revenue Act in his capacity as Commissioner Agrarian Reforms and thus the order was not legally tenable as the authorities under the Agrarian Reforms Act do not have the power and jurisdiction to interfere or to correct or to set aside an order passed under the Land Revenue Act. As per the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue). 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record. 12. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag dated 19.06.2019 and I do not find any legal infirmity in the same with respect to the observations recorded in the aforesaid order to the extent that the respondents therein (petitioners herein) have deceived the said court intentionally and managed to get the subject matter transferred in revenue records in favour of Irfan Ahmad Tramboo and Wasim Ahmad Tramboo (petitioners herein), in gross violation of the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act and taking cognizance of the matter, the learned Addl. Dy. Commissioner Anantnag vide order dated 19.06.2019 has set aside the mutation No.2282 dated 25.01.2016 passed by Naib Tehsildar Pahalgam with respect to land measuring 03 kanals 07 Marlas 3 Sirsai under Survey No.41 situated at Laripora Tehsil Pahalgam District Anantnag. The said order was upheld by the learned Financial Commissioner by rejecting the reference while exercising the powers under section 28-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act, and has rightly escheated the land to the State by issuing a direction to the concerned Deputy Commissioner to take the land under custody on behalf of the State. The learned Financial Commissioner has rightly observed that the respondents did not have the power to make a compromise qua the land in question with the petitioners when the former already stood divested of their rights through vesting the land and attestation of mutations in the name of the tenants under Section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act which mutations have also been upheld by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag vide order dated 08.08.2022. 13. In the aforesaid context, the compromise was not being in consonance with law and rightly so the reference of the Court below was rejected by the Financial Commissioner by upholding the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner. 14. The petitioners have very cleverly filed the present petition by making reference of both the Articles i.e. Article 226 and Article 227 and the petitioners themselves are not sure under what provision of law the present writ petition has been filed. 14. The petitioners have very cleverly filed the present petition by making reference of both the Articles i.e. Article 226 and Article 227 and the petitioners themselves are not sure under what provision of law the present writ petition has been filed. In absence of any specific pleading in this regard, the present writ petition is held to be not maintainable as the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) dated 23.06.2023 and the order passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag in appeal dated 19.06.2019 cannot be challenged under Article 226 and insofar as Article 227 is concerned, the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution can exercise power of superintendence over all the Subordinate Courts and the Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which, it exercises jurisdiction. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there has been: (a) An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a court or tribunal; or (b) Gross abuse of jurisdiction; or (c) An unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the courts or tribunals. 15. Judicial pronouncements as to the object and scope of power of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution would leave little scope to interfere with the orders of subordinate courts as a matter of routine. This power cannot be taken as a right of another appeal to the aggrieved party, nor this power can be invoked to point out an error of law or fact in the Order or judgment/decision of Subordinate Court as has been asserted by petitioner in the case in hand. This power cannot be used to make out that the decision of the Subordinate Court could have been or must have been other than what it is. The High Courts in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution should interfere with the Trial Court orders only to keep Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, ‘within the bounds of their authority’ and to ensure that law is followed by such Tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction vested in them and not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. 16. 16. Further, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 it has been laid down that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 17. The Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 , after discussing ambit of powers vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, has laid down certain propositions, including that “supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction, which it does have or the jurisdiction, though available, is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. The Supreme Court cautioned that be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law. The Supreme Court has also laid down that care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised and the High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015 AIR SCW 1849), has taken a different view from one that was taken in Surya Dev Rai's case (supra) concerning jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judicial order of Civil Court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015 AIR SCW 1849), has taken a different view from one that was taken in Surya Dev Rai's case (supra) concerning jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judicial order of Civil Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the question referred to in Radhey Shyam's case (supra), held that judicial orders of Civil Courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contrary view taken in Surya Dev's case has, thus, been overruled. However, the position qua jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, elaborately dealt with in Surya Dev Rai's case, has not been changed. 18. Article 227 of the Constitution, which the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon, vests the High Courts with the power of superintendence over the subordinate courts and Tribunals within their respective jurisdictions. The extent and scope of jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616 . The Court, while doing so, held that the said Article vests the High Courts with a power of superintendence which is to be exercised very sparingly to keep tribunals and courts within bounds of their authority. It was further held that under Article 227, orders of both civil and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage has been occasioned and that such power is not to be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law. 19. It is well settled by the decision of this Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath [ AIR 1954 SC 215 ] that the “power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee [ AIR 1951 Cal 193 ], to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors”. 20. 20. I am fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another reported as (2003) 3 SCC 524 : “The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal”. 21. In Shalini Shyam Shetty vs Rajendra Shankar Patil reported as (2010) 8 SCC 329 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority. 67. As a result of frequent interference by the Hon’ble High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution with pending civil and at times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the civil and criminal courts gets further impeded and thus causing serious problems in the administration of justice. This Court hopes and trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, the Hon’ble High Court will follow the time honoured principles discussed above. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly”. 22. This Court hopes and trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, the Hon’ble High Court will follow the time honoured principles discussed above. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly”. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Estralla Rubber Versus Dass Estate (P) Ltd. reported as (2001) 8 SCC 97 has held: “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to. 7. This Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram TahelRamnand in AIR Para 12 has stated that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and, not for correcting mere errors. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram TahelRamnand in AIR Para 12 has stated that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and, not for correcting mere errors. Reference also has been made in this regard to the case Waryam Singh v. Amarnath. This Court in Bathutmal Raich and Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte has observed that the power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal and that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. Judged by these pronounced principles, the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 in passing the impugned order”. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment passed in case titled M/s Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel reported as (2022)4 SCC 181 has observed as under: “…. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelhjo Pereira (Ms) and others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, the power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 24. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 24. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, coupled with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to show indulgence in the present writ petition being devoid of any merit as this Court do not find any legal infirmity with respect to the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner dated 23.06.2023 and the order passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag dated 19.06.2019. As a necessary corollary the order, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) dated 23.06.2023 and the order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner Anantnag dated 19.06.2019 are upheld. Accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed for the reasons stated hereinabove.