Sr. No.8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE) LPA/99/2025 CM/3276/2025 MAJEEDA BI …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. H.A. Siddiqui, Advocate with Mr. Shamas-ud-din, Advocate Vs. UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R 1 to 5 Mr. Irfan Khan, Advocate for R 6 to 8 CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 04-06-2025 1. Father of the parties (Ali Mohd) died in 1974. He was succeeded by his son late Abdul Ghani (respondent No. 6), appellant (Majeeda Bi) and two other daughters namely Shameed Bi (respondent No.7) and Saleem Bi (respondent No.8). Post Ali Mohd’s death, Mutation No. 214 with respect to his estate was sanctioned in equal shares in favour of his son and three daughters. However, the Naib Tehsildar concerned vide order dated July 31, 1975 recorded that the daughters of late Ali Mohd would be entitled to retain their shares in the estate of the deceased only till their marriage. 2. As a result, the order dated July 31, 1975 was assailed by the appellant. Since the appeal preferred by her was barred by time, it was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The order dated 27.05.2023 (Page 74 of the paper book) shows that while examining the said application, the Assistant Commissioner LPA/99/2025 Revenue (ACR), Poonch observed that the delay in filing the appeal was not condonable. But posted the matter for final consideration to June 10, 2023. However, on the adjourned date, the officer concerned upon hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the said application and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. 3. However, as the earlier order dated 27.05.2023 passed by his predecessor was not brought to his notice, he accordingly vide application dated 21.07.2023 moved the Deputy Commissioner, Poonch, and sought permission under Section 13 of the Land Revenue Act to review the Fard-i-Ahkam written on 27.05.2023. 4. It is not in dispute that the District Collector, Poonch, in exercise of powers under Section 13(1)(a), vide order dated 08.08.2023, accorded the necessary permission to review the order dated 27.05.2023. It will be apposite to point out at this stage that the respondents 6 to 8 rather than assailing the said order moved the Deputy Commissioner for transfer of the appeal from the court of Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Poonch before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Poonch. And vide order dated 18.08.2023, the said application was allowed and the matter was accordingly transferred. Whereafter, respondents 6 to 8 filed a revision assailing the order dated 18.08.2023 (ibid) vide which the permission under Section 13(1)(a) of the Land Revenue Act was granted. But the matter was disposed of by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu for the revision petition against the interim order was not maintainable. Accordingly, the parties were directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Poonch who was in seisin of the appeal to pursue the respective claims/interests. 5. Aggrieved by the orders dated March 20, 2025, August 8, 2023, July 21, 2023, June 17, 2023, as referred to above, respondents 6 to 8 approached this Court vide WP(C) 916/2025. And vide impugned order and judgment dated April 25, 2025, the learned Single Judge concluded that since the permission under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act was obtained after the order dated 17.06.2023, was passed and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, the orders that were assailed by respondents 6 to 8 were not sustainable. And were accordingly set aside. The matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Poonch to consider the desirability of the reviewing of the order dated 27.05.2023. And in the LPA/99/2025 event it is considered necessary that the order dated 27.05.2023, is required to be reviewed, a prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner be obtained. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Ex-facie, the order dated 27.05.2023, reveals that the application moved by the appellant seeking condonation of delay was never rejected or dismissed. Though, as indicated earlier, an observation was recorded that the delay in filing the appeal was not condonable. This is further fortified as the matter was adjourned by the ACR Poonch for 10.06.2023 for final consideration. Thus, in essence, even if vide order dated 17.06.2023, the Assistant Commissioner (Reveneu), Poonch, had condoned the delay, there was hardly any occasion or necessity to seek permission of the Deputy Commissioner, in terms of Section 13 of the Act. 8. Albeit we had heard the learned counsel for the parties in depth, but we would refrain from making any observation on merits or regarding the respective claims of the parties. For the appeal against the order dated 13.07.1975 is still pending consideration. Particularly, when during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant and respondent 6 to 8 have reached a consensus that in the given circumstances, it would rather be expedient if the competent authority is directed to decide the appeal on merits and dispose of the matter. For a considerable time has already elapsed while pursuing the litigation before multiple forums. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order/judgment is modified in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the respective parties, and the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 10. Suffice it to say, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Poonch, who is in seisin of the appeal, shall proceed to dispose of the matter on merits within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 04-06-2025 Shameem H. Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether approved for reporting Yes/No