1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE) CJ Court LPA No. 122/2025 in [WP(C) No.3075/2023 Reserved on 15.07.2025. CM No. 3080/2025 Pronounced on 22 .07.2025. CM No. 3992/2025 Cav. No. 1351/2025 PRITAM SINGH WAZIR (SENIOR CITIZEN) …Applicant(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Parvesh Singh Salaria, Advocate. Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH. COMMISSIONER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPTT AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Sagira Jaffer, Assisting counsel to Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. Mr. Vinod Kotwal, Advocate for R-4,6-11. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE JUDGMENT 22.07.2025 (Per Oswal, J) 1. The revision petition in terms of Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, 1996 preferred by 13 petitioners therein came to be accepted by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu vide order dated 3rd June, 2006, and accordingly, reference was made by him to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) in terms of Section 15(3) of the Land Revenue Act, 1996, who in turn assigned the same to the Joint Financial Commissioner with powers of Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, Jammu. 2. During the pendency of the reference, petitioner No’s 1, 4 & 6 therein expired and the Joint Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 2 vide order dated 8th October, 2015 abated the proceedings in its entirety. Some of the petitioners therein preferred an application on 29th September, 2016 for setting aside of abetment order dated 8th October, 2015, before respondent No. 2-Financial Commissioner, UT of J&K, Jammu, however, during the pendency of the said application, a review petition was also preferred on 16th June, 2017, and the application for setting aside the abetment application was withdrawn. The respondent No.2 vide its order dated 28th November, 2023, accepted the review petition and set aside the order dated 8th October, 2015. 3. The order dated 28th November, 2023, became the subject matter of WP(C) No. 3075/2023, preferred by the appellant, wherein the appellant challenged the order on the grounds that: (i) The review petition preferred by some of the respondents was barred by limitation. (ii) The scope of review was limited only to the extent of error, apparent on the face of the record and there was no such error existing in the order dated 8th October, 2015. 4. The writ petition filed by the appellant was objected to by the contesting respondents. 5. After having failed before the learned writ Court, as the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed on 3rd June, 2005, the appellant has preferred this intra-court appeal against the order dated 3rd June, 2025, (for short ‘impugned order’) thereby reiterating the same grounds as urged before the learned writ Court. 6. Notice. Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 3 7. Notice waived by Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Assisting counsel to Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG on behalf of respondent No’s. 1-2 and Mr. Vinod Kotwal, Advocate for respondent No’s 4,6-11. On the consensus of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned writ Court has not considered the issue of limitation at all. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, has argued that there was error apparent on the face of record because in terms of Rule 22 of J&K Land Revenue Rules 1969, the reference proceedings could not have been abated. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The respondent No. 2-Financial Commissioner, UT of J&K, Jammu after taking note of Section 15(3) of the Land Revenue Act, and the judgment passed in “Bishan Dass & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner & Ors. OWP No. 1490/2018”, deemed it proper to exercise its review jurisdiction, thereby setting aside the order dated 8th October, 2015. 12. The learned writ Court while passing the order impugned has taken note of the fact that the order dated 8th October, 2015 was suffering from vice of error apparent on the face of the record which the Financial Commissioner (Rev) J&K deemed it proper to rectify. 13. In fact it is evident that the order dated 8th October, 2015 was passed by the Joint Financial Commissioner (Rev), Jammu being oblivious to the Rule 22 of J&K Revenue Rules which mandates that death of one of the party to revenue proceedings shall not cause the proceedings to Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 4 abate. As the order dated 8th October, 2015 was passed in ignorance of statutory Rule, the mistake committed by the Joint Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu was rectified by the respondent No.2 as it is never too late to rectify one’s own mistake. 14. After having gone through the order impugned in this intra court appeal and also the order dated 28th November, 2023, we do not find any reason to show indulgence, as such, this appeal is dismissed along with the connected CM(s). (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR: 22.07.2025 “Abdul Rashid” Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No. Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document