RAHTI Vs. RAI BAHADUR R C KAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application for quashing the order dated 9 - -8 -1971 passed by the Financial Commissioner, by which he reversed the orders of the Divisional Commissioner and Collector (Deputy Commissioner) and restored that of the Assistant Commissioner.

(2.) THE relevant facts which have given rise to this application are as follows: A dispute between the parties was in respect of land measuring 6 kanals 71/2 marlas under Khasra No. 701 situate in village Dara, Tehsil Srinagar. Respondent No. 1 who is the landlord filed an application on 4 -8 -1961 before the Deputy Commissioner alleging therein that a violation had been committed by the father of the petitioner as he had transferred the land to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner sent the application to the Assistant Commissioner for disposal. The Assistant Commissioner after trial held that there was a violation of the provisions of section 68 -A of the J&K Tenancy Act. This order was made by him on 29 -10 -1963. An appeal was preferred by the present petitioner against that order to the Deputy Commissioner and he on 30 -6 -1966 reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The respondent then filed an appeal against this order before the Divisional Commissioner and he also upheld the findings of the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal of the respondent. The respondent then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner who set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner as well as of the learned Commissioner and restored the order of the Assistant Commissioner on 9 -8 -1971. This petition is already said, is directed against this order of the Financial Commissioner on the grounds inter alia that the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction and competence to disturb the entry of protected tenants and that the decision of the Financial Commissioner is erroneous in law and that there are errors apparent on the face of the record.

(3.) THE application has been opposed by the respondent No. 1 and contended that the Financial Commissioner had jurisdiction and he had correctly applied the law and that it is not a fit case in which there should be interference with the order passed by the Financial Commissioner.