Bashir Ahmad Mir And Ors vs Union Territory Of J And K And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 813 J&K/2

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Bashir Ahmad Mir And Ors vs Union Territory Of J And K And Others on 24 February, 2025

Author: Javed Iqbal Wani

Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani

                                                           S.No. 11
                                                           Reg. List

    HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                    AT SRINAGAR

                                  WP(C) 1609/2023
                                  CM(3765/2023)

BASHIR AHMAD MIR AND ORS.                ...Petitioner/ Appellant(s)

             Through: Mr. Altaf Mehraj, Advocate

                                  V/s

UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS.              ...Respondent(s)

             Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy
                      Mr. N. A Beigh, Sr. Advocate with
                      Mr. Irfan Rasool, Advocate


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE.

                                 ORDER

24.02.2025

1. In the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged order

dated 17.04.2023 passed by Joint Financial Commissioner

(Revenue) J&K in revision petition titled as "Mohammad

Maqbool Allie Vs. Bashir Ahmad & Ors." instituted on

09.12.2021 by private respondent herein against mutation No.

2042 dated 08.09.2007 in respect of land measuring 3 kanals

and 18 ½ marlas covered under survey No. 1087/412 situated at

Estate Khusipora HMT, Tehsil Shalteng, Srinagar.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

2. The private respondent, in the aforesaid revision had alleged that

the mutation in question had been got attested by the petitioners herein fraudulently at their back, as private respondent inherited

the land in question upon death of his father having died on

24.06.2000, and that the mutation in question had been got

attested after death of the father of the private respondent herein

by the petitioners herein purportedly on the basis of a gift deed

claimed to have been executed by the father of the private

respondent herein in favour of the petitioners herein on

14.06.2002, on which date the father of the private respondent

was already dead.

3. Perusal of the record reveals that the Revisional Forum, after

entertaining the said revision petition, summoned the

respondents in the revision petition, being petitioners herein,

initially through ordinary mode and subsequently through

substituted mode, and on account of their non-appearance,

consequently set them exparte and proceeded to decide the

revision petition on merits, and consequently upon examining

the record available on the revision petition as also the case set

up therein, allowed the revision petition and set aside the

mutation in question while holding that the question of limitation

would not come in its way in deciding the revision petition in the

light of various judgments referred therein in the impugned order

passed by this Court and the Apex Court, besides opining that the

mutation in question seems to have been attested in violation of

standing order 23-A and is outcome of fraud and consequently remanded the matter to the Tehsildar concerned for denovo

inquiry and orders.

4. The petitioners herein, in the instant petition, have averred that

the impugned order came to be passed at their back by the

Revisional Forum and the findings recorded by the said Forum

qua the validity of the gift deed on the basis of which the

mutation in question came to be attested has been arrived at

without providing any chance to the petitioners herein to rebut

the same.

5. Perusal of the record of the petition as also the record of the

Revisional Forum would reveal that the respondents before the

Financial Commissioner being petitioners herein, indisputably

have chosen not to appear before the Revisional Forum despite

having been summoned properly and the Revisional Forum has

as such allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned

mutation.

6. Besides the plea of the non-existence of the gift deed on the basis

of which the mutation in question was claimed to have been

attested in favour of the petitioners herein is not being disputed

or denied by the petitioners herein even before this Court,

although the petitioners were not present before the Financial

Commissioner and could not object to the plea of non-existence

of the gift deed in question, yet the petitioners could have

produced the said gift deed before this court in the instant petition, in order to dispel the findings of the Financial

Commissioner in this regard.

7. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion as to the

existence or non-existence of the gift deed in question and in

order to secure the ends of justice in the matter, it is deemed

appropriate to modify the impugned order, and, set aside the

findings recorded by the Financial Commissioner, qua the

existence of gift deed in question and consequently dispose of the

petition with a direction to the Tehsildar concerned to conduct

denovo inquiry in the matter and offer reasonable and adequate

opportunity of hearing to both petitioners as well as respondents

herein before passing any fresh orders in the matter with liberty

to the parties herein to produce all necessary and requisite

documents on which they would rely upon in support of their

respective claims before the Tehsildar.

8. Till fresh orders as directed above are passed by the Tehsildar

concerned, the parties shall maintain status quo on spot over the

subject matter land.

9. Disposed of.

(JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 24.02.2025 "S.Nuzhat"