BHAGAT PARSHOTAM DASS Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner on 11 -10 -1987 applied to Tehsildar, Chadoora for correction of Khasra Girdawari in respect of Khasra No 39/min situate in village Kursoo, Padshahi Bagh, claiming to be in possession of an area measuring 6 kanals 13 marlas. The Tehsildar after enquiry on 28 -4 -1972 - ordered correction of the girdawari in favour of the petitioner. Respondents 5 to 11 challenged this order of the Tehsildar in revision before the Financial Commissioner who allowed the same bv holding that respondents 5 to 11 having not been summoned by the Tensildar, the correction of the girdawari entries had been ordered in a manner not permitted by law and reminded the case of the Asstt. Commissioner Srinagar for its disposal in accordance with law. The Asstt. Commissioner, after a detailed enquiry, vide his order dated 12 -2 -1876, found the claim of the petitioner being in exclusive possession of the land in dispute without any basis and accordingly directed that the entries recorded in the name of respondents 5 to 11 shall remain intact.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged the order of the Asstt. Commissioner, Srinagar, that was dismissed on 4 -4 -1977 A revision petition against the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 4 -4 -1977 preferred before the Financial Commissioner was allowed on 1 -2 -1984 and the proceedings were transferred to the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Badgam, under Sec. 19 (4) of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act because Mr. R. K. Takkar, the Financial Commissioner, was of the view that though the inspection note of his predecessor dated 30 -61983 and spot verification report of Asstt. Commissioner dated 8 -2 -1975 confirmed that the land was not being used for agricultural purpose or the purposes subservient to it but since the girdawari entry of the year 1971 recorded the land under corp, the application of the Agrarian Reforms Act to it was not ousted. Not satisfied with the findings, respondents 5 to 11 applied for review of the order which came to be heard by Mr D. N. Kotwal, who by then had succeded ,Mr, Takkar as Financial Commissioner. Mr. Kotwal agreed with the connention that his predecessor could not have transferred the case under Sec 19 (4)of the Act to the Collector, Agragrian Reforms, because it was not pending before any Revenue Officer subordinate to the collector. It was also held by him that even if the land was agricultural, his predecessor as Financial Commissioner could have transferred the case to Asstt. Commissioner (Collector) Badgam, but not to the Collector, Agrarian Reforms and this legal position was conceded on behalf of the petitioner before Mr. Kotwal, who come to the conclusion that there was an error apparent on the face of the record because the land was not agricultural and as such the issues arising out of it fell within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers and not the authorities under the Agrarian Reforms Act. He accordingly accepted the review petition and dismissed the revision petition thereby maintaining the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 4 -4 -1977. It is this order of the Financial Commissioner which has been assailed in this petition interalia on the ground that power of review vested in the Revenue Officer under Sec. 13 of the Land Revenue Act is unconstitutional for want of guidlines and absence of grounds on which it can be exercised. Other grounds of challenge are about the land being covered or not by the Agrarin Reforms Act, 1975 being disputed questions of fact, having been determined by a competent authority under the Act, cannot be gone into by this court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Thus, if the power of review under Sec 13 of the Land Revenue Act is held constitutional, the order impugned would be valid.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties,