Recently, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that under Section 10 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act, the Financial Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner, or Collector possesses the statutory authority to withdraw any case pending before a revenue officer under their control and either decide the matter themselves or refer it to another revenue officer. The Court further emphasised that such powers are broad in scope, enabling the concerned authority to adjudicate even when the matter originates as a transfer application.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners had been in undisputed possession of certain village land for decades, claiming it had come to their father’s share through a private partition with the father of respondents 4–8. This settled arrangement remained unchallenged until after 2013, when the land’s market value rose sharply. The respondents then sought a fresh partition, which the petitioners resisted, alleging interference with their possession.
The petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Udhampur, who passed an interim order protecting possession. Meanwhile, the respondents moved the Tehsildar Majalta for correction of girdawari entries. The matter was referred to the Naib Tehsildar, who reported that the respondents held less land than the petitioners and recommended that partition proceedings, rather than girdawari correction, were the proper course. Based on this, the respondents initiated partition proceedings before the Tehsildar Majalta.
Without affording the petitioners an opportunity to file a written statement or be heard, the Tehsildar ordered partition. The petitioners then invoked Section 10 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act before the District Collector, seeking transfer of the case from the Tehsildar on grounds of bias and procedural lapses. The District Collector ordered status quo but disposed of the application. Contending that this was without jurisdiction, the petitioners filed a review petition, which was dismissed, followed by a revision petition that also failed, leading to the present writ petition.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Counsel for the respondents argued that the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact, making it unsuitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction. They further submitted that no statutory or fundamental right of the petitioners had been infringed. Importantly, they contended that Section 10 of the J&K Land Revenue Act grants ample powers to the Collector, Divisional Commissioner, or Financial Commissioner to decide a case on merits, even if it originated as a transfer application. The deletion of the Khasra entries, they argued, was factually and legally correct and had attained finality.
Observations of the Court:
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi undertook a close examination of Section 10 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act, observing that its language is couched in broad and unambiguous terms. The provision does not merely confer a power of transfer; it vests in the Financial Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner, or Collector the plenary authority to withdraw any case pending before a revenue officer under their control, and thereafter either decide the matter themselves or, through a written order, entrust it to another competent revenue officer within their jurisdictional hierarchy.
Addressing the petitioners’ contention that the Deputy Commissioner’s role was confined solely to determining whether grounds for transfer were made out, the Court rejected such a narrow construction. It held that once jurisdiction under Section 10 is validly assumed, the authority is not restricted to the mechanical act of transfer but is statutorily empowered to examine, adjudicate, and dispose of the substantive issues arising in the case. The Court stressed that the breadth of this provision reflects legislative intent to ensure that matters pending before subordinate revenue officers can be effectively taken over and decided at a higher level whenever circumstances so warrant, even if the initial trigger is a transfer application.
The Court further underscored that this wide ambit leaves little scope for writ interference when the revenue authorities have acted within the contours of Section 10. The writ petition, therefore, was intrinsically barred, as the statutory framework itself contemplated and authorised the impugned course of action. In essence, the grievance raised did not stem from any jurisdictional error but from a disagreement with the substantive adjudication, a matter squarely within the province of the revenue authorities empowered under the Act.
The decision of the Court:
Finding no merit in the challenge and holding the writ petition non-maintainable, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Bhagu Ram and Others v. Joint Financial Commissioner Revenue Jammu and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Case No.: WP(C) No. 1121/2021
For Petitioners: Mr. R.K.S. Thakur, Advocate
For Respondents: Ms. Chetna Manhas (Asst. Counsel to Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG), Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Mangotra, Advocate
Picture Source : twitter.com