Gulla Dar vs Abdul Hamid Dar And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 950 j&K/2

                                                               S. No. 01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                   AT SRINAGAR

               WP(C) No. 2024/2023 CM No. 4704/2023

Gulla Dar                                                   ...Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr I. A. Parray, Advocate.
                                    Vs.

Abdul Hamid Dar and Ors.                                   ...Respondent(s)

Through: None.
CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
                               ORDER

16.08.2023 (ORAL)

1. The facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition would reveal that the petitioner herein filed two appeals before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, (hereinafter for short the appellate forum) calling in question mutation No. 523 dated 17.02.1984 and mutation No. 527 dated 09.03.1984 respectively in respect of land measuring 10 kanals and 19 marlas attested under Section 4 & 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. The respondents herein also filed an appeal against inheritance mutation No. 314 dated 01.12.1962 attested in favour of the petitioner herein before the same forum.

2. The appellate forum considered all the three appeals together and disposed of the same vide order dated 01.10.2013 after hearing the appearing counsel for the parties and set aside mutation No. 523 and 527 while allowing the appeals filed by the petitioner herein, also allowed the appeal filed against mutation No. 314 attested in favour of the petitioner herein and while setting aside the same remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar Chadoora for holding of a proper enquiry and passing of appropriate orders in presence of the parties particularly on the issue and question of death of Ama Dar, (father of

the petitioner) and consequent entitlement of the petitioner to the estate of the Ama Dar stated to have died before his father Umar Dar.

3. Aggrieved of the setting aside of mutation No. 314 by the appellate forum, the petitioner herein filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (for short the revisional forum) on 27.01.2014. The revisional forum upon considering the revision petition, dismissed the same vie order dated 14.06.2017 upholding the order of the appellate forum observing that there is no infirmity in the order of the appellate forum including the remand of the matter to Tehsildar concerned for ascertaining as to whether the father of the petitioner (Ama Dar) had predeceased his father Umar Dar or not and whether an inheritance mutation could have been attested in respect of landed property of Umar Dar in favour of the petitioner herein.

4. The petitioner herein dissatisfied with the order dated 14.06./2017 passed by the revisional forum filed a review petition against the same inter-alia on the following grounds: -

(i) Patent error on the fact of judgment is apparent that despite seeking no relief viz-a-viz mutations (523 and 527) attested under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, these were deliberated in the order under rules.

(ii) Impugned order was passed in absence of the parties particularly applicant during the turmoil in the valley; and

(iii) Mutation order passed in presence of father of non- applicants way back in the year 1962 is self explanatory and did not require any enquiry as ordered by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner and upheld by the order under review.

5. The revisional forum while considering the aforesaid review petition filed by the petitioner herein dismissed the same after hearing the appearing counsel for the parties by observing that review applicant has failed to substantiate to prove any error apparent on the face of the record or any development enabling this Court for exercising the powers under Section 13 of the Land Revenue Act.

6. Aggrieved of the order passed by the appellate forum and revisional forum has filed the instant petition on the grounds urged in the petition.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has remained contended with the order of the appellate forum dated 01.10.2013 insofar as it pertain to mutation Nos. 523 and 527 which came to be thrown challenge to by the petitioner herein in two appeals and came to be set aside by the appellate forum. The petitioner herein however, has been aggrieved of the part of the order passed by the appellate forum insofar it related to the mutation No. 314 which had been indisputably attested in his favour along with his uncle. The said mutation had been challenged by the respondents herein in a separate appeal before the appellate forum which also came to be decided by the appellate forum while deciding the appeals filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid mutation 523 and 527. The appellate forum admittedly set aside the mutation 314 attested in favour of the petitioner on the sole ground that the said mutation being inheritance in nature could not have been attested in favour of the petitioner herein, in that, the petitioner's father Ama Dar had predeceased his father (Umar Dar) disentitling the petitioner to inherit his grandfather.

8. The only ground urged against the order of appellate forum qua mutation 314 by the petitioner has been that the attestation of mutations 523 and 527 per-se would have been sufficient proof for defending the attestation of mutation 314 attested in his favour and that there was no occasion as such for having setaside the said mutation 314. The appellate forum in absence of any factual assertion urged by the petitioner in this regard rightly set aside mutation No. 314 and the revisional forum as well rightly did not interfere with the remand order passed by the appellate forum and in this view of the matter the review petition filed by the petitioner against the order of revisional forum per-se on bare perusal cannot, in law, said to have

been warranting review of the order by the revisional forum on any grounds much those urged by the petitioner and those referred herein the proceedings paras.

9. The grounds urged in the instant petition against the impugned orders are misconceived both on facts as well as law and therefore, do not call for any interference into the impugned orders in essence being an order of remand requiring the statutory authority to address to the issue identified by the appellate forum and upheld by the revisional forum.

10. For what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the instant petition entails dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.

(JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 16.08.2023 Ishaq