S. No. 13 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA No. 91/2022 In OWP No. 1422/2018 Abdul Majid Bhat …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shuja Ul Haq, Advocate Vs. Mst. Khatji and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Syed Avees Geelani, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE • O R D E R 30.04.2025 1. This Intra Court appeal filed by the appellant is directed against an order and judgment dated 05.04.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court [“the Writ Court”] in OWP No. 1422/2018 titled as “Mst. Khatji and Ors, vs Financial Commissioner and Ors”, whereby the Writ court has accepted the writ petition and quashed the order of Financial Commissioner dated 21st June 2018 passed in an application filed by the appellant. 2. At the outset, Mr. Shuja Ul Haq, learned appearing counsel for the appellant, would submit that the dispute which the respondent No.1 had raised in his writ petition was with respect to mutation No.864 dated 15.02.2018 attested by the Tehsildar Magam and, therefore, he would not be averse, if the aforesaid mutation attested in favour of respondent No.1 is kept out of purview of the order passed by Financial Commissioner. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the dispute which he had raised before the Financial Commissioner was with regard to the land other than the one covered by mutation No.864 dated 15.02.2018. He, therefore, fairly submits that he shall have no objection, if the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 is allowed and the relief claimed in the writ petition is granted. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we find that mutation No. 864 dated 15.02.2018 attested in respect of half of the land of deceased Khalil Khan situated in village Pethkanihama, Tehsil Magam, was subject matter of challenge in a revision petition filed by the appellant before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, which respondent No. 1 submits, stands already withdrawn. 5. Be that as it may, it is abundantly clear that mutation No. 864 dated 15.02.2018 was not subject matter of challenge before the Financial Commissioner. The provocation to file the writ petition by respondent No.1 was apparently due to Financial Commissioner setting-aside all the mutations with regard to the land at Pethkanihama and remanding the matter to the Tehsildar for fresh orders. Apprehending that in terms of order dated 21st June 2018 passed by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, the mutation No. 864 dated 15.02.2018 also stood set-aside, OWP No. 1422/2018 came to be filed by respondent No.1. From reading of memorandum of a writ petition, it clearly transpires that respondent No.1 had thrown challenge to the order of Financial Commissioner only to the extent it had set-aside mutation No. 864 dated 15.02.2018. The writ court, as is gatherable from the impugned order, set-aside the entire order passed by Financial Commissioner. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above and also in view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the parties that mutation No. 864 dated 15.02.2018 was not subject matter of challenge before the Financial Commissioner, we propose to dispose of this appeal by providing as under:- I. That the impugned judgment passed by the writ court is set- aside. II. That the order of the Financial Commissioner is clarified and it is provided that the order of the Financial Commissioner which was subject matter of challenge before the writ court does not and shall not affect the validity of mutation No. 864 dated 15.02.2018 attested by Tehsildar Magam and the same shall remain intact unless set-aside by a competent court in competent proceedings. 7. Ordered, accordingly. 8. Disposed of. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 30.04.2025 Shabroz