Sr. No. 20 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR OWP 159/2019 MOHAMMAD SIDIQ GANAI …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Gulzar Sopori, Advocate Vs. STATE OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 18-03-2025 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner herein has challenged order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the Joint Financial Commissioner. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition would reveal that the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara against Mutation No. 363 dated 15.08.2002, attested in respect of land measuring 03 Kanals 10 Marlas, situated at Gagloosa, Kupwara. The said appeal, being time-barred, was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay and came to be consequently decided on 04.06.2008 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, dismissing the same being time-barred while further observing that the husband of Respondent 4 herein and the petitioner herein are brothers, and the said brother of the petitioner, had died issueless and during his lifetime, he had gifted a part of the land in question to the respondent 4 herein, based on which the impugned mutation came to be attested in presence of the petitioner herein. 3. Dissatisfied with the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 04.06.2008, the petitioner herein filed a review petition, which too came to be dismissed. Junaid Ayoub I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 4. The petitioner herein, thereafter, preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner Revenue on 14.06.2012, however, before filing the revision petition, the petitioner herein had filed an application before the Divisional Commissioner in this regard, which was dismissed in terms of order dated 14.03.2012. 5. The petitioner herein, has assailed the impugned order of the Financial Commissioner dated 07.06.2018 on multiple grounds in the instant petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein challenged Mutation No. 363 dated 15.08.2002, despite being a party to the attestation of the said mutation and admittedly, challenged the said mutation after a considerable period of time in the year 2005 before Deputy Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner while considering the application for the condonation of delay accompanying the said appeal, seemingly dismissed the same on account of the insufficiency of the explanation offered for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal in terms of order dated 04.06.2008. 7. Record also reveals that before filing the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner against the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14.06.2008, the petitioner had filed an application before the Divisional Commissioner on 21.08.2008 qua the matter, which was dismissed on 14.03.2012, in terms whereof. the petitioner came to be granted a liberty to agitate the matter before the Financial Commissioner, whereupon the petitioner preferred the revision petition on 14.06.2012, which came to be consequently dismissed in terms of the impugned order. Since as has been noticed in the preceding paras, the mutation (supra) challenged by the petitioner has been attested in presence of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner could not claim that the same was attested at his back and challenge the said mutation almost after a period of three years without explaining the circumstances which had resulted into delay. Junaid Ayoub I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 8. Perusal of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner reveal that the said orders have been rightly passed while adverting to the controversy. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court, under these circumstances, is not inclined to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution against the concurrent findings of the forums below, more so in view of the involvement of complicated disputed questions of facts. 10. Resultantly, the petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 18-03-2025 Junaid Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No. Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No. Junaid Ayoub I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document