AB KHALIQ BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMING to be the owners of land measuring 31 Kanals 15 marlas under survey Nos.105,610,621,624,625, 103,622, 107 situate at Rekhi Suthu Tehsil Nowgam through their predecessors in interest, the petitioners, heirs of one Ramzan Bhat, Ama Wani, Rehman Bhat and Sona Sheikh by plead that the land in question was purchased by their predecessors from the original owners namely Jawala Datt and Jagdish Chander sons of the sister of original owner Nand Lal, and had been mutated in their favour under mutation No. 157 of Seripartab Singpora where -under the whole land under Khata No.2 -was transferred in favour of Jawala Datt and Jagdish Chander after deletion of NandLaPs name whereafter they sold it to predecessors of petitioners through different sale deeds executed and registered way backing in October, 1957 pursuant whereto the requisite mutations were also attested in their favour by concerned revenue officers. It is further pleaded that petitioners 13 to 16 are in continuous possession of the suit land and vested with ownership rights under the provisions of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, (in short "the Act"). Pleading that the entire chunk of land aforesaid was notified under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act for being acquired for laying/construction of railway track, the petitioners maintain that they accordingly sought compensation thereof from the concerned Collector in June, 2000 but were informed that under mutation No. 402 of Rakh Suthu the whole land had been shown and mutated as Khalisa Sarkar after cancellation of mutation No. 157 where under Jawala Dutt and Jagdish Chander aforesaid had taken over the land decades back. On obtaining a certified copy of said mutation, they found that the same referred to some unspecified orders of Assistant Commissioner purporting to have been passed on 07.01.1963 and Dy. Commissioner dated:

(2.) 01.1971 without any mention of the contents or substance of said orders. Aggrieved they instituted a revision petition before Financial Commissioner for correcting the irregularity committed by attestation of mutation No. 402 on 3.3.1971 which was dismissed on 27.12.2001. 2. It is to assail the dismissal order of their revision petition by Financial Commissioner, that petitioners have instituted this writ petition to seek its quashment on the ground that it was unfounded in law, by dismissing the revision petition, Financial Commissioner virtually denied rectification of the irregularity complained of and thereby failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him resulting in gross miscarriage of justice, particularly because he never tried to summon the original records wherefrom the irregularity had erupted.

(3.) IN his reply respondent No.2, which has been adopted by other respondents also as reflected by interim, order of 19.8.2004 has pleaded that Late Jawala Datt and Jagdish Chander were not heirs of deceased Nand Lal and as such the mutation No. 157 of 2008 BK was rightly cancelled resultant whereupon the land escheated to Government under mutation No.402 and as such the revision petition filed by petitioners before the Financial Commissioner was rightly dismissed and consequently thus the petitioners had no interest in compensation for the land involved. It has also been pleaded that revision petition before Financial Commissioner had been filed by petitioners after about three decades which was an additional reason for rejection thereof. During course of submissions learned counsel appearing for rival sides have reiterated the contents of their pleadings.