ALI MOHAMMAD GUJREE Vs. STATE OF J.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To put them straight, the facts as these surface from the instant petitions are that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein these petitions challenged the validity of the orders of Naib Tehsildar Ganderbal passed in two mutations bearing Nos. 164 and 192 attested on the dates 14.08.1993 and 09.04.1994 respectively viz-a-viz the land situate at village Nagabal, Ganderbal, before the learned Financial Commissioner J&K, Srinagar, in two revision petitions and they carved his indulgence in quashing the same.

(2.) The revision petitions were filed before the authority aforesaid on 25th of July 2005 i.e. after an approximate period of 11 years from the dates of their attestation. The petitioner (respondent No.3 in the two revisions) filed an application before the learned Financial Commissioner pleading therein that the petitions are time barred and, therefore, these merit dismissal on that score alone. The Ld. Financial Commissioner, did not find favour with this argument and dismissed the application on 17th of September 2012, by holding that both the revision petitions are within time. It needs must be said that the petitioners in the revision petitions had not filed any application for the condonation of delay before the Ld. Financial Commissioner, except for stating that they were oblivious of the fact that any mutations have been attested and that they came to know about the orders on the dates 21st of July 2005 and 26th of July 2005 The petitioner before this Court in these petitions has stated that the plea of limitation can be raised at any stage and even at a belated point of time and the condition precedent in a case which is ex facie barred by time is that the person (s) seeking condonation of delay has/have to satisfy the authority that he/they has/have a sufficient cause in maintaining a petition which fact has to be pleaded and proved. In the end it has been urged that the learned Financial Commissioner Revenue has exceeded his jurisdiction and has committed a grave illegality in dismissing the application of the petitioner herein these petitions by holding that the revisions are within time.

(3.) Heard and considered.