KARIM DAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition must be allowed on the short point that the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

(2.) THE facts leading up to this petition are these : One Sultan Dar died leaving surviving three sons Gwashi, Wahab and Rahim. His landed property was mutated in the name of his three sons in equal shares. Subsequently Gwashi died and his ?rd share was mutated in the name of his son, Samad Dar, respondent No. 2 here. Thereafter Wahab also died. Being is -sueless, his ?rd share was mutated in the name of his brother, Rahim. Thus Rahim came to have ?rd share of the landed property left by Sultan while |rd was owned by Samad Dar. Following the death of Rahim his |rd share was mutated in the name of his son, Karim Dar, petitioner here. All these mutations were effected in the year 1977 Bk and before. The landed property so owned by the parties is situated in Shah Gund, Tehsil Sonwari. In the year 1962 A.D. the State Legislature enacted what is styled as the Jammu and Kashmir Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1962. The Act was designed to effect consolidation of holdings in the areas brought under its purview and to provide for the determination of the disputes incidental thereof. Sometime after the enactment of this Act, Tehsil Sonwari was brought under the purview of this Act. During the course of the Consolidation operations, the petitioner, Karim Dar, made an application before the Consolidation Officer concerned saying that he was not in possession of full  §rd share owned by him adding that it was so because his co -owner Samad Dar, respondent here, held more than |rd entered in his name. He prayed that the excess land held by Samad Dar be restored into his possession. Alongside Samad Dar made an application alleging that he was entitled to | share of the land as against  £rd entered in the records and possessed by him and prayed that the records be corrected accordingly. By his order dated 13 -11 -1967, the Consolidation Officer dismissed the application of the petitioner and allowed that made by the respondent. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner Karim Dar filed a Revision petition before the Director of Consolidation who allowed the same and remanded the case for fresh inquiry to the Settlement Officer. By his order dated 11 -6 -1969, the Settlement Officer repeated the order made earlier by the Consolidation Officer. Against this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Director of Consolidation on 26 -6 -1969. As no appeal lay under the Act against the order of the Settlement Officer, the Director of Consolidation ordered the appeal to be treated as a revision petition; called for the record and directed notice to issue to the other party. The other party appeared and the record too was received. Thereafter the case was adjourned several times for hearing the arguments and was still pending when the Consolidation of Holdings Act was amended by Act No. XXVI of 1969 which came into force on 13 -10 -1969. Under the amending Act powers of revision, heretofore exercised by Director of Consolidation was vested with power to hear missioner while the Director of Consolidation was vested with power to hear appeals against orders passed on appeal by the Settlement Officer. In view of this amendment the revision petition pending between the parties before the Director of Consolidation came to be heard by the Financial Commissioner under circumstances about which the record is not clear. The Financial Commissioner upheld the order of the Settlement Officer dated 11 -6 -1969 and dismissed the revision petition on 1 -8 -1970. It is against this order that the petitioner -has filed this writ petition.

(3.) IN Om Prakash V. Moti Lal and ors (A.I.R. 1958 All. 409) section 25 of the U.P. Small Causes Court Act gave power to the High Court to hear revisions against the orders passed by the court of Small Causes. This section was amended by U.P. Act 17 of 1957 whereby the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court to hear revisions was transferred to the District Court. The amending Act came into force on