BALDEV RAJ Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of and has challenged order/judgment dtd. 16/2/2023 passed by respondent No.1 in file No. 614-15/FC-ACR/AP whereunder and whereby mutations No. 4192 and 4210, both dtd. 8/8/2016 attested by respondent No.9 have been set aside. Apart from challenging the impugned order on merits, the petitioner alleges conspiracy also between respondents No. 2 to 5 and respondents 6 to 8.

(2.) The dispute between the parties in respect of land measuring 40 kanals, 19 marlas covered by khasras No. 16 and 17 of estate Toph Sherkhania, Tehsil and District Jammu ['the subject land'] has a chequered history. Earlier, there was litigation between the ex-landlords and the predecessor-in-interest of the parties, namely Ghasitoo which ended with an order dtd. 5/11/1986 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal ['the Tribunal']. The Tribunal held the predecessor-in-interest of the aforesaid parties, namely Ghasitoo entitled to get ownership rights qua the subject land under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 ['the Act']. Resultantly, on the basis of a Will executed by Ghasitoo in favour of the petitioner, mutation No. 4192 dtd. 6/5/1987 and mutation No. 4210 dtd. 4/6/1987 under Ss. 4 and 8 of the Act were attested and the ownership rights qua the subject land were vested upon the petitioner to the exclusion of other co-sharers. Both the mutations became the subject matter of challenge in two appeals filed by respondent No.6. The said appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, J&K vide its order dtd. 16/2/2000 on the point of limitation. Respondent No.6 took the matter to the Tribunal by way of a revision petition and the Tribunal vide its order dtd. 30/12/2009 set aside the order of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, J&K as also the mutations, the subject matter of challenge in the appeals. The matter was remanded to the Tehsildar concerned for attestation of mutations afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties and considering evidence on record. The order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner herein before this Court by way of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed by the Writ Court and the appeal preferred also met the same fate. This is how the matter landed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 18466/2014. The Supreme Court disposed of the SLP vide its judgment dtd. 4/4/2016 and directed the competent Authority to adjudicate the mutation proceedings in terms of Division Bench Judgment of this Court after issuance of notice to all the interested parties in accordance with law. The Apex Court further directed that the Competent Authority shall adjudicate and adjudge all the aspects as propounded before it and a decision shall be taken within six months. The aforesaid order came to be passed by the Supreme Court in the background of observations made in the order that the High Court should not have expressed any opinion on the tenability of the 'Will' as it had remanded the matter to the Competent Authority for fresh adjudication.

(3.) Be that as it may, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, the Tehsildar concerned passed fresh orders on mutations No.4192 and 4210, both dtd. 8/8/2016 whereby the ownership rights qua the subject land were conferred upon the petitioner and his three brothers i.e respondents No. 6 to 8 in equal shares. The petitioner, who, on the basis of a 'Will' executed by late Ghasitoo was clamouring for vesting of ownership rights qua the subject land upon him to the exclusion of his other brothers, challenged both the mutations by way of two separate appeals filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu. While the aforesaid appeals were pending adjudication, the sisters of the petitioner i.e respondent Nos. 2 to 5 also challenged both the fresh mutations attested on 8/8/2016 by filing an appeal directly before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) [with powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, J&K]. The said appeal was entertained by the Financial Commissioner and disposed of vide order impugned by holding that the appellants (respondents 2 to 5 herein), who were also co-sharers qua the subject land, had not been heard in the matter. The Financial Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority, set aside both the aforesaid mutations being violative of the principles of natural justice. It is this order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) dtd. 16/2/2023 which is assailed by the petitioner before this Court.