RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this Letters Patent appeal the appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge of this court J. N. Bhat J., as His Lordship then was, who dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Respondent No. 2 cancelling allotment of land in favour of the appellant. A brief resume of the facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be given as below:

(2.) THE appellant who claims to be a displaced person was allotted 4 kanals of land including 7 marlas in Khasra No. 283 -min in village Tral Tajwal Tehsil Kathua by the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu vide his order No. LS -2518 -19 dated 29 -7 -1967. As these 7 marlas of land comprising the aforesaid Khasra No. stood already allotted in favour of respondent No. 3 herein, by the Deputy Commissioner Kathua, vide his order dated 13 -2 -1963, for residential proposes, the appellant challenged this order of allotment made by the Dy. Commissioner before the Divisional Commissioner Jammu. ,The Divisional Commissioner being of the view that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to allot the land in favour of respondent No. 3 made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner, respondent No. 2, herein, that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, be quashed. Accordingly the Deputy Commissioner heard the parties before him and accepted the recommendation made by the Divisional Commissioner vide his order dated 28 -11 -1969. The Financial Commissioner however did not rest content with over -setting the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Kathua, but also cancelled the allotment of the said land which had been made in favour of the appellant by the P.R.O. vide his order dated 29 -7 -1967. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the aforesaid order of the Financial Commissioner cancelling allotment of land in favour of the appellant on the ground that the order of the Financial Commissioner was illegal and ultra vires as there was no proceedings before him in which the allotment in favour of the appellant was challenged, that the Financial Commissioner could not have gone beyond disposing of one way or the other the recommendation made to him by the Divisional Commissioner, that the order of the Financial Commissioner was violative of the principles of natural justice and that the petitioner -appellant had been granted ownership rights in respect of the said land under Govt. Order No: 264 -C of 1965. There being no dispute about the facts stated. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the writ petition on the grounds that there was no violation of any legal or fundamental right of the petitioner entitling him to maintain the writ petition, that the order of the P. R. O. allotting the land in favour of the appellant was a nullity as being without jurisdiction, that the order of the Financial Commissioner was not violative of the principles of natural justice as the party before him had opportunity to address arguments on all the points before him and the Financial Commissioner was competent to examine the whole case in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. It was further pleaded that the parties had been heard and. after hearing the parties the learned Financial Commissioner passed the impugned order.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner, argued the points in issue in writ petition before the Financial Commissioner and when the decision was against the petitioner -appellant, he has proceeded to challenge the same in the writ petition, According to the learned Single Judge, the Financial Commissioner, was seized of the entire case and therefore, was fully competent to pass the impugned order. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, there has been no violation of any natural justice in so far as the order of the learned Financial Commissioner was concerned.