S. No. 22 Regular List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C)No. 2270/2024 Mst. Sara …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bilal Ahmad Khan, Adv. Vs. UT of JK and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy.AG, Mr. G. N.Sofi, Dy. AG, CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. ORDER 01.09.2026 01. The petitioner had filed a revision petition against the Mutation Order No. 400 dated 3rd May, 2006 attested by Naib Tehsildar, Pattan, which came to be decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, Srinagar in terms of Order dated 10th July, 2017 and a reference was made to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J&K/Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, J&K, with a recommendation to set aside the mutation supra and further the Tehsildar be directed to attest fresh mutation after denovo enquiry in favour of all the legal heirs of deceased Habib ullha Sheikh strictly under Muslim Personal Law. The said reference was pending before the Joint Financial Commissioner, who had reserved the same for pronouncement of final orders. But due to the transfer of the said officer, the Financial Commissioner, i.e., respondent no. 1 in terms of Order dated 19th June, 2024, withdrew the said reference from the court of Joint Financial Commissioner and took up the case for hearing through virtual mode. As none was present and the matter was posted for 21st August, 2024. On 21st August, 2024, also none was present and the matter was listed for orders on 22nd September, 2024. On 22nd September, 2024, the order impunged came to be passed and the reference made by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir was rejected. 02. Aggrieved by the order dated 22nd September, 2024, the petitioner has come with the instant petition, complaining that the order impugned has been passed without affording due opportunity of hearing. 03. None had appeared on behalf of the private respondents either before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir or Financial Commissioner. Before this Court also, they have chosen not to appear despite service. Accordingly, they are set ex-parte. 04. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 05. The record of the Financial Commissioner substantiates the contention of the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner i.e., respondent no. 1 for its fresh disposal in accordance with law. 06. Disposed of. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 01.09.2026 “Shamim Dar”