RAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) PETITIONER Mst. Raja alleges that the land measuring 4 kanals and 4 marlas situated at Hyderpora has been mutated in her name by the Naib Tehsildar vide mutation Order No. 3304 dated: 28 -09 -1993 after her father Late Rasool Bhat orally gifted this property to her. However, her mother Mst. Azizi W/o Late Gh. Rasool Bhat questioned the mutation on 28 -10 -1999, when she filed revision petition before Financial Commissioner, J&K Government. The Financial Commissioner is alleged to have passed the order even though he found the matter time barred. There is further allegation that the matter was decided without hearing the writ petitioner and that it was not competent for Financial Commissioner to upset the mutation in question of Naib Tehsildar.

(3.) THE Financial Commissioner has given adequate and detailed reasons for up -setting the mutation order under revision, after the period of limitation was condoned and the Financial Commissioner elected to deal with the matter on merits as the substantial justice warranted disposal of case on merits, rather than on technical ground of limitation. The Financial Commissioner is alive to provisions of statutory law and has referred case law while dealing with the matter. Reasons have been laid on record on condoning the delay and setting aside the mutation on the ground that the mutation has been effected against provision of law and beyond jurisdiction. The allegation that the writ petitioner has not been heard does not appear to be based on facts. In fact, the matter was disposed of after parties through lawyers participated in the proceedings and were heard. The Financial Commissioner has power to decide the matter, which lie has done, within jurisdiction and the para meters of law. No ground is made out for admission of this writ petition to hearing.In result, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.