Serial No. 164. 165 and 166 Suppl Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP (C ) No. 2357/2025 CM No. 6236/2025 Caveat No. 1848/2025 MOHAMMAD SULTAN DAR AND ORS ( Sr. CITIZEN) …PETITIONER (s) Through: Mr. B.A. Bashir, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Falak Bashir, Advocate Mr. Azeem Rasic, Advocate. VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(s) Through: Mr. R.A. Jan, Sr Advocate with Mr. Wahid Lone, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE. ORDER 29.09.2025 Oral: WP (C ) Nos. 2357/2025, 2358/2025 and 2360/2025 01. All these three Writ petitions are filed by the petitioners involving issues which are akin and analogous to each other, as such, are taken up together for their adjudication and disposed of hereunder. Facts: 02. The instant petitions are the second round of litigation inter-se the petitioners and private respondents herein before this Court. 03. In the first round of litigation, the private respondent herein namely Aziz Dar challenged Order dated 18th of February, 2020 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) in the Revision petition filed by the petitioners herein along with four others in which Financial Commissioner had set aside Mutation No. 497 dated 22nd of May, 1957, Mutation No. 9 dated 28th of October, 1962 and Mutation No. 311 dated 16th of November, 1989 attested by Tehsildar Pattan qua the landed estate of one Habib Dar and Rahim Dar. 04. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate and significant to refer hereunder the pedigree table of the parties, being relevant and germane to the controversy involved in the instant petitions: 05. Mutation No. 497 dated 22nd of May, 1957 supra, is an inheritance mutation, attested qua the estate of above-named Rahim Dar, pursuant to which his estate devolved upon his three sons, namely Salam Dar, Shahban Dar, and Asad Dar and not upon his fourth son, namely, Aziz Dar, as he had been adopted by his uncle, Habib Dar, i.e., brother of Rahim Dar. 06. Subsequently, Mutation No. 9 of 1962 was attested qua the estate of Habib Dar, in favour of Aziz Dar along with his wife, Mst. Mukhti, whereafter, Mutation No. 311 of 1989 came to be attested qua the estate of Mst. Mukti, upon her death, in favour of Aziz Dar. Rahim Dar Habib Dar (Brother) Mst. Mukhti (Wife) Salam Dar (Son) Shaban Dar (Son) Aziz Dar (Son) Assd Dar (Son) 07. The Petitioners herein, while calling in question the aforesaid mutations, including their own inheritance mutation Mutation No. 497 of 1957 in the Revision Petition supra, did so on the premise that the said mutations had been attested when Petitioners No. 2 and 4 herein were minors as also same was attested behind their back, and that they had no knowledge about the attestation of the mutations under challenge because the entire estate was unpartitioned. 08. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), while considering the said Revision petition filed by the Petitioners herein, allowed the same and, consequently, set aside the impugned mutations, by virtue of the order dated 18th February, 2022. 09. Aggrieved of the said Order dated 18th of February, 2022, the private respondent, Aziz Dar, herein preferred Writ Petition bearing WP (C) No. 605/2020 before this Court, assailing the said order and the fundamental ground of challenge urged was that the Financial Commissioner had set aside the mutations without adverting to the question of limitation as the Revision petition was hopelessly time-barred, having been filed against mutations of the years 1957, 1962, and 1989, respectively. 10. This Court, upon considering the said Writ petition, in terms of judgment and order dated 20th of May, 2022, allowed the same and set aside the order of the Revisional Authority dated 18th of February, 2022 and remanded the matter back to the Financial Commissioner for fresh consideration, while directing to first examine the issue of limitation, and only if satisfied with the explanation tendered by the revision petitioners for the inordinate delay ranging from (29 to 61) years, then to proceed to decide the revision petition on merits. 11. The Financial Commissioner, thereafter, in terms of judgement and order dated 18th of July, 2025 of this Court, dismissed the revision petition filed by the Petitioners herein, holding the same to be barred by limitation. 12. Upon the dismissal of the revision petition on the ground of limitation, the Petitioners herein preferred a Review petition under Section 13 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, Smt 1966, before the Financial Commissioner, which Review petition also came to be dismissed vide Order dated 25th of August, 2025. 13. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 18th July, 2025 and 25th of August, 2025, the Petitioners herein, being the revision petitioners before the Financial Commissioner, have now maintained the instant Petitions, while seeking the following reliefs: “a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing both the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1 on Revision petition dated 18.07.2025 and Review petition dated 25.08.2025. b. Issue a Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to strictly follow the Writ Court direction by permitting the petitioners to produce evidence about the fact that the ancestral property of Habib Dar is still un-partitioned and the impugned mutation was passed during the minority of the petitioners behind their back in violation of the Standing Order 23-A” 14. The grounds of challenge urged in the Petitions, for the sake of convenience, are in extenso reproduced hereunder: i. That the impugned orders passed in revision dated 18.07.2025 & review dated 25.08.2025 are both suffering from lack of application of mind on the part of respondent No. 1 hence deserves to be set aside. ii. That respondent no. t has not adhered to the directions passed by the writ court, hence both the orders being in glaring violation and breach of mandate/direction given by the writ court are non-est in the eyes of law, hence deserve to be set aside. iii. That when the writ court on the material available on record had come to the conclusion that limitation issue could not be decided being disputed question of fact so far as the plea raised by the petitioners is concerned viz-a-vis the property being joint and un-partitioned as well as petitioners being minor at the time of passing of impugned order, hence both the said disputed issues could be adjudicated after recording evidence to be produced by the petitioners as specifically stated in para no. 25 of the judgment, respondent No.1 has bypassed said direction by virtually overruling the directions of the writ court by deciding limitation on the material on record when the writ court had specifically directed that said issue could not be decided on material[ on record but the parties were supposed to lead evidence in this behalf which the respondent No.01 has completely ignored to do, hence the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. iv. That the writ court after remanding the matter for adjudication afresh on limitation had to be adjudicated strictly as per directions of writ court, which have been completely ignored and overlooked by the respondent no. I and on the other hand he has not only deviated from the directions given by the writ court but even touched the merits of the case which he could not do till limitation was decided and after touching merits has passed orders on limitation which squarely amounts to placing cart before the horse. The writ court had directed vice-versa pursuant to which first issue of limitation had to be decided after recording evidence to be produced by the petitioners and thereafter once delay would have been condoned then merits could be touched white as respondent no.1 has done quite reverse by first deliberating on merits then on limitation, hence the order deserves to be set aside. v. That the impugned order of 18.07.2025 passed in revision petition being illegal unwarranted and in categorically deviation of the directions of the writ court suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record, consequently review petition was filed to draw the attention of the respondent No.1 to said errors but unfortunately said review petition was dismissed in limine without even issuing notice to other side and the impugned order passed on review petition on 25.08.2025 again suffers from non-application of mind on the part of the respondent No.1 hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. vi. vi. The Financial Commissioner in no circumstances had any power of or jurisdiction to bypass or overrule the directions of the writ court and take upon himself the course and method to adopt for deciding limitation while ignoring the directions of the writ court in this behalf, hence the order is illegal and unsustainable and based on extraneous considerations which have influenced the respondent No.1 to pass such impugned orders on revision and review petitions. Heard appearing counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. According to Mr. B.A. Bashir, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners herein, the Financial Commissioner grossly erred in dismissing the revision petition as time-barred without adhering to the question of limitation in tune with the specific direction passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation on 20th of May, 2022 which required the Financial Commissioner to first address to the question of limitation before proceeding to decide the revision petition on its merits. The learned Senior Counsel would, in this regard, heavily rely upon Paras 24, 25, and 26 of the said judgment and order, which being relevant herein, are also reproduced hereunder. “24. It is true that in the revision petitions filed by the respondents No. 2 to 4, an explanation is tendered in the following words: “that the petitioners were minors at the time when the impugned mutations have been made. Secondly, whole property left behind by Rahim Dar and Habib Dar was joint between the parties. It is jointly owned as well as possessed by the parties on spot. No partition till date has been affected. Therefore, petitioners never knew anything about the impugned mutations They at all had no knowledge of the mutations till the end of February 2018. On getting knowledge, petitioners applied for copies and after getting the same revisions filed under proper legal advice.” 25. It is seen that though the revisional authority has shown his awareness with regard to the highly belated revision petitions filed by the respondents 2 to 4, yet instead of dealing with the explanation tendered by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on merits, the revisional authority has chosen to dispense with the issue of limitation. Such course is admittedly not permissible in law. The revisional authority was under an obligation to adjudicate upon the question of limitation in proper perspective. As is claimed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that they were minor at the time of attestation of impugned mutations and that the properties between the parties were joint and un-partioned, as such all these questions were questions of fact which would necessarily require evidence to prove. The Revisional Authority has dispensed with the point of limitation probably being influenced by its perceived strong merits of the case set up by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the revision petition. The Revisional Authority very conveniently omitted to consider the plea of limitation which, in the instant case, was a case of huge delay of 29 to 61 years. 26 It is true, prior to reorganization of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, period of limitation for filing suit, appeal or application for revision was regulated by J&K Limitation Act. In the instant case, revision petitions were filed in the year 2018 i.e before reorganization of J&K State and, therefore, these were governed by J&K Limitation Act. Ordinarily, period of limitation for filing revision petition should be the same as the period for filing appeal. The Revisional Authority (Financial Commissioner) may, however, exercise discretion in treating a revision petition within time, provided he is satisfied that the delay in filing the revision petition is sufficiently explained. It is not only the duty of the Financial Commissioner to be so satisfied, but he must express his satisfaction in clear words in the judgment (See: Mst Zaina v. Financial Commissioner and Ors, SLJ 1983 J&K). Impugned order is silent about it, rather the Financial Commissioner has dispensed with the issue of limitation. From reading of impugned order, it clearly transpires that the Financial Commissioner was so satisfied with case of respondents No.2 to 4 on merits that he decided to ignore the plea of limitation as if it was consequential. This vitiates the impugned order in its entirety.” 16. On the contrary, Mr R. A. Jan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondent herein, while opposing the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the orders impugned in the present petitions have been passed strictly in conformity with the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and in furtherance thereof, the Financial Commissioner has duly dealt with the question of limitation. 17. As has been noted in the preceding paras, this Court, in the earlier round of litigation, while passing Judgment and Order dated 20th of May, 2022, had taken cognizance of the case set up by the petitioners herein in the Revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner as also the explanation tendered for condonation of delay and, rightly observed and opined that although the Financial Commissioner had shown his awareness with regard to the highly belated Revision petition, yet instead of dealing with the explanation tendered by the Revisional petitioner qua the said delay, had chosen to dispense with the issue of limitation, which course is not permissible in law as the Revisional Authority was under a clear obligation to adjudicate upon the question of limitation in the first instance its proper perspective and consequently, while remanding the case back, directed the Revisional Authority to advert the question of limitation in the first instance and, only if satisfied with the explanation tendered in this regard, then to proceed to decide the revision petition on merits. 18. Record reveals that this Court had also in the order dated 22nd of May, 2022 noticed that the revision petitioners had claimed to be minors at the time of attestation of the mutations under challenge, and had further contended that the property in dispute between the parties was joint and unpartitioned, such questions, being essentially questions of fact, were required to be established by evidence. However, this Court did not make it obligatory upon the Revisional Authority to adopt any specific method or mode for deciding the question of limitation, in that, the primary direction was to decide the question of limitation in the first instance, while making a reference to the pleading of the petitioners herein in the revision petition. 19. Further, it emanates from a closer examination of the record in general and the impugned orders in particular that the Revisional Authority has, in fact, exclusively dealt with the question of limitation and, in furtherance thereof, has rightly taken cognizance of the dates of the mutations attested under challenge in the revision petition, the relationship inter se the parties, as well as the record of the said mutations and, upon such consideration, has noted that all the petitioners herein, as well as the private respondent herein, being real brothers and residents of the same village, could not plead ignorance or lack of knowledge regarding the attestation of the mutations in question and in particular one made in favour of the private respondent herein. Having said that, if at all the petitioners herein were aggrieved by the attestation of mutations in favour of the private respondent herein, pertaining to the estates of Habib Dar and Mst Mukhti, they could not have waited for decades before challenging the same, merely on the premise that they came to know of such mutations belatedly, even after having in the meantime attained majority by petitioner Nos. 2 and 4. 20. It is also significant to mention here that the Revisional Authority has also taken into account the fact that out of the estate inherited by the private respondent herein pursuant to the mutation in question have had out of the said inherited land measuring 01 kanals and 6 and ½ marlas to one Gh. Mohmmad Dar, suggesting that the stand taken by the petitioners that the property is joint and unpartitioned gets belied by the said transaction. 21. Thus, having regard to the above, the Revisional Authority cannot be said to have faulted or else alleged to have not followed the judgment and order dated 22nd of May, 2022 passed by this Court earlier in the matter in concluding that the Revision petitioners have not been able to project a sufficient cause to throw challenge to mutations after considerable period of time. 22. Viewed thus for what has been observed, considered and analysed hereinabove, the instant petitions are found to be without any merit and are accordingly dismissed. Caveat No. 1848/2025 shall also stand discharged, accordingly. 23. The Registry is directed to place the copy of this order on each file. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge SRINAGAR 29.09.2025 Showkat Khan