JAN MOHD Vs. REVENUE MINISTER, J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition relates back to Poh 26, 2007 (Samvat) corresponding to January 8,1951, when mutation No 121 of village Chani Raman, Tehsil Jammu, expropriating Kapur Singh and ors from three parcels of land comprised in Khasra No 1 (measuring 34 kanals), Khasra No. 17 (measuring 37 kanals and 11 marlas) and Khasra No, 18 (measuring 46 kanals and 12 marlas) was sanctioned in favour of the state under Section 6 of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act. 2007, by the Special Tehsildar, Jammu. Claiming that the land was held by his father, Nashar Din, as a tiller uptil Rabi 2004, under Kanshi Ram, an occupancy tenant of the land, who could not acquire proprietary rights as he was a big landlord and that Nashar Din was compelled to give up the cultivation of the land owing to the communal disturbances of 1947, the petitioner filed a revision petition against the aforesaid mutation on August 23, 1968, before the Commissioner, Jammu. On a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State and Rohlu and others to whom the land was allotted by the State on September 14,1959, to the effect that the effect that the revision could not be entertained as it had been filed after inordinate delay of nearly 18 years, the Commissioner dismissed the revision following a decision of the Financial Commissioner, in Baga Versus Sain and others 1965 K. L. J. 47, (where it was held that heavy burden lay on the petitioner who failed to invoke the revisional jurisdiction for a long time to explain the laches) and holding that the petitioner had failed to offer a reasonable explanation for the delay in preferring the petition. On further revision the Financial Commissioner held that the aforesaid Act did not prescribe any period of limitation for revision, that the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner could not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and that it was incumbent upon the subordinate Revenue Officers to enquire into the claim of the petitioner. With these observations he set aside the order of the Commissioner and remanded the case to the Tehsildar, Jammu for fresh enquiry and order directing that if the condition prescribed by the Act that a tiller should be a permanent resident of the State is satisfied and if it is found that Nashar Din or his heirs were entitled to be given the ownership rights of the land, the same should be mutated in their names. Aggrieved by this decision Rohlu and others filed a revision before the Government which was disposed of by the Revenue Minister to whom power of revision had been delegated under Section 35 of the Act. The Revenue Minister accepted the revision and set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner holding that it would be manifestly wrong and unjust to hold that time is of no consideration in a revision petition and any tenant could come and claim the right even after lapse of several years, that such a finding would give rise to intricate problems of grave nature, that an aggrieved person could at best invoke the revisional jurisdiction under the Act within a period of one year and that the petitioner had been guilty of laches and could not therefore, be, given the relief sought for by him. It is against this order that the present writ petition is directed.

(2.) APPEARING for the petitioner Mr. S. P. Gupta, has vehemently urged that the order of the Financial Commissioner being final and no substantial question of law or of public interest being involved in the case, the Revenue Minister could not interfere with the order by former.

(3.) I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner but regret I cannot acceded to it.