GH RASOOL DAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) egistry has reported that all respondents have been served. Non-appearing respondents 4 and 5 are deemed served. Admit Notice. Mr. N. H. Shah accepts notice at this post- admission stage on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Shah submits that he is not desirous to file reply instead he would only settle for making oral submissions. Heard. This matter can be disposed of finally on consensus of the parties so taken up accordingly. In this petition order dated 24-8-2001 of Financial Commissioner is under challenge. The Financial Commissioner has by the impugned order directed correction of revenue entries in records besides initiating disciplinary action against the erring revenue officials. Further direction is given to Tehsildar Settlement Srinagar to record possession of the land in question in the name of private respondents to this writ petition.

(2.) From record and in the light of the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties it is seen that respondent No. 4 filed revision against some entries made in Girdawari in the year 1999 in respect of land measuring 3 Kanals and 10 marlas situated at estate Batmaloo Tehsil Srinagar. While dismissing this Revision on 3-7-2001 as not maintainable, the Financial Commissioner treated the application as one required to be processed u/S. 8 of Land Revenue Act under General Superintendence and Control over revenue officers by the Financial commissioner. Treating the application so when the matter came before Financial Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner passed above referred impugned order on 24-8-2001. Obviously the direction inter alia with regard to possession is in exercise of powers of General Superintendence and control over revenue officers on administrative side. The Financial Commissioner who is heading the revenue Department has passed order u/S. 8 and not under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act. Even so the direction is expressly made subject to out-come of the civil suit between the parties. Both counsel for the parties are agreed that the parties are litigating before the 2nd Additional D & S Judge, Srinagar. Obviously the question of title, and/or possession is to wait the finding and decision of competent Civil Court. Any direction given or observation made with regard to possession or any entry in records with regard to such possession is by way of an administrative action and that too expressly made subject to outcome of the decision of the Civil Court. The counsel agree that question of title and possession or possessery title is to be independently gone into and determined by the competent Civil Court on enquiry on evidence as envisaged under law. Any observation on administrative side or any direction like the one in this case, cannot be regarded as a decision of a forum authorised by law including Land Revenue Act, to decide the matter. Obviously entries in revenue records if any made pursuant to above direction u/S. 8 of Land Revenue Act is subject to the decision of the Civil Court. With regard to other limb of the impugned order touching the enquiry against the erring officials within the canopy of disciplinary action no objection can be taken, as rightly so submitted by Mr. Z. A. Shah. The competent authority /officer is free to take action thereto as per law.

(3.) . With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Inform the civil court and concerned Revenue Authority of this order. Disposed of.Order accordingly.