MOHD ISHAQ Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by respondent No. 1 Financial Commissioner, Jammu on April 11, 1984 under the authority and power of the Revenue Minister by reviewing the order parsed on April 26, 1982 in the revision titled as Mohammad Ishaq Versus Custodian General.

(2.) AT the out set, learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the legality of the order passed in review by Respondent No. 1 on the petition of Respondent No. 2 being violative of the provisions of J&K Delegation of Fowers Act, 1983. It is submitted that Section 2 of the said Act empowers the Revenue Minister only to delegate his powers to hear appeal or revision under any law, rule or order for the time being in force. This Section does not empower the Minister to delegate the powers of review, which is beyond the scope of the said Act hence the order impugned is liable to be quashed being without jurisdiction. Arguing on merits, it is pointed out that no ground for review existed with the Financial Commissioner Respondent No. 1 to review the order passed by his predecessor on April 26, 1982 on the petition of the present petitioner.

(3.) CONTESTING the petition, respondent No. 2 challenged in the preliminary objections the locus -standi of the petitioner to file the present writ petition on the allegation that the petitioner is neither the owner of the land in dispute nor in possession of the same. On merits it is stated in the counter that the land, which was under the Occupancy Tenancy of Barkat Ali and others was declared as an Evacuee Property by the Custodian, Jammu. It is further contended that the occupancy rights can devolve by inheritance only on the male members or widowâ„¢s under law, the petitionerâ„¢s mother, namely, Mst. Sagir Bibi was neither the widow of occupancy tenant nor the petitioner is entitled to claim through her the restoration of the property under law. The property in dispute is in possession of the respondent No.2 singe October 2, 1980, who is cultivating the same.