MOHI-UD-DIN SIKANDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE nine writ petitions raise a common question of fact and law. Therefore, they are disposed of by one common judgment. In all these petitions order on departmental revision petitions passed by Financial Commissioner on 10.7. i975 as also order on Review petitions dated 9. 6. 1976 is sought to be quashed. The facts identical in all the petitions necessary for the determination of these writ petitions reveal that the Divisional Commissioner, Srinagar, by an order dated 15. 10. 1974 had made a reference to the Financial Commissioner that the order of Tehsildar Badgam on mutation Nos. 2190, 2100, 2201, 2200, 2201, 2200, 2202, 2203, 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1703 and 2199 of village Karewa Domodhar Tehsil Badgam and 94 of village Wavech dt. 6.4.1959, 10.5. 1962, 11.5.1962, 5. 10. 1967, 11.12.1967and 16.1.1968 respectively be set aside, and a fresh enquiry be conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, Srinagar, in these cases and in other related cases. Thereafter order warranted under law be passed.

(2.) IT appears that different parcels of land were mutated in favour of the petitioners under Govt. order LB 6 C and the matter was taken up departmentally because the said order held not applicable to the lands which were mutated in favour of the petitioners. Interested parties were summoned and they filed their objections before the Divisional Commissioner. Some villagers seem to have made a complaint that uniform procedure be adopted in their favour also and they claimed right under the order LB 6/C. The Divisional Commissioner desired that mutations were attested in haphazard manner and the officers had not made over -all assessment of the total land available for the people who were entitled to get a right in the said land. The learned Divisional Commissioner has also stated that lands mutated in favour of the petitioners could not be held to be governed by LB 6/C. Therefore, he was of opinion that these mutations should be cancelled.

(3.) WHEN the reference came up before the Financial Commissioner he wrote a detailed order excluding application of LB 6/C to the said land on the ground that these cases were governed by rules for the grant of land for building purposes or other rules and orders which were applicable to Nazool Land. In fact there was a provision in LB 6/C itself that if a land is governed by Land grant Rules or Nazool Rules, LB 6/C will not be applicable to such lands. He has accordingly held that the Und in question were governed by land Grant Rules.