S. No. 4 Regular list HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR OWP 1538/2014 WAJAHAT HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. G. N. Sofi, Advocate & Mr. Nazim Khan, Advocate. Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, GA with Ms. Shaila Shameem, Assisting counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI JUDGE ORDER 19.03.2025 (Oral): 1. A three-and-a-half-page order of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K Srinagar passed in a revenue revision on file No.434/FC-AP has kept this Court engaged for last more than ten years and that is the constraining factor for this court to put a disposal to this writ petition so as not to allow the writ petition anymore stay on the docket of this court. 2. One-Gaffar Sheikh, a resident of Buchwara Srinagar, was undisputed estate holder having land in in estate Buchwara, tehsil Khas, District Srinagar. 3. As per the averments made in the writ petition, and which seem not to admit of any dispute or denial, Gaffar Sheikh was survived by his sole child (daughter) named Azi, who was married to Mohammad Abdullah Jan taken as khana damad. Page 2 of 8 4. Mst. Azi and her husband Mohammad Abdullah Jan are stated to have two children born out of their wedlock, namely, Ghulam Rasool (son) and Taja (daughter) 5. Upon expiry of Mst. Azi, her husband Mohammad Abdullah Jan is said to have been solemnised second marriage with Mst. Mugli out of which wedlock four children are said to have been born. 6. The two petitioners herein, namely, Wajahat Hussain and Mst, Mehmooda are next of Ghulam Rasool and Mst. Taja related to Mst. Azi, whereas respondents No. 03 to 09 are the next ones relatable to Mst. Mugli with Mohammad Abdullah Jan being the common ancestor. 7. Whether or not any mutation of inheritance had taken place in favour of Mst. Azi enabling her to succeed to the estate of her father Gaffar Sheikh is not gatherable from the record of the present case. 8. Be that as it may, son-in-law Mohammad Abdullah Jan first married to Mst Azi and then second time married to Mst. Mugli is said to have purchased some parcel of land from none else than his father-in-law Gaffar Sheikh in terms of a sale deed dated 05.02.1995 Bikrami, but which was never ever produced and subjected to any attestation of mutation all along the course of time-consuming decades and decades of passing. 9. From nowhere, mutation No. 2009 dated 07.09.2006 by reference to the sale deed dated 5th Jeeth 1995 Bikrami (1935 AD) comes to be attested simultaneously accompanied by attestation of a mutation No. 2011 dated 07.09.2006 by reference to Tamlik Nama (Relinquishment Deed) alleged to have been executed on 01.06.1976. This mutation No. 2011 was with respect to plot of property measuring 10 marlas comprising Khasra No. 709/192 forming the subject matter of Tamlik nama (Relinquishment Deed). On the same very date of 07.09.2006, a third mutation No. 2012 got attested by reference to a purported registered sale deed of 1992 in terms whereof sale of one marlas 171 sqfts. of area by Mst. Mugli, the second wife of Mohammad Abdullah Jan is said to have taken place in favour of her adopted son Altaf Hussain, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No. 3 to 6. 10. Before the same day attestation of the aforesaid three mutations, a mutation No. 1900 dated 14.05.2003 had come to be attested with respect to inheritance of estate of Mst. Azi, daughter of Gaffar Sheikh, in terms whereof the successors-in-interest of Mst. Azi from Mohammad Abullah Jan had become beneficiaries. 11. The branch related to the successors-in-interest of Mst. Azi and Mohammad Abullah Jan objected to the attestation of the said three mutations which led the Naib Tehsildar concerned to contemplate review of the said three mutations and for that by seeking the proper permission of the Tehsildar Srinagar granted in terms of letter No. 791/TAS/2006 dated 12.10.2006, the Naib Tehsildar concerned came to recall/cancel all the three mutations No. 2009, 2011 and 2012 of estate Buchwara, Tehsil Khas by passing an order dated 12.10.2006, against which the successors-in-interest of Mohammad Abdullah Jan from Mst. Mugli preferred a review revision on file No. 434-FC-A before the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar who vide an order dated 31.10.2014 came to find fault with the order dated 12.10.2006 of the Naib Tehsildar concerned in cancelling the said three mutations and thus, set aside the said order dated 12.10.2006 thereby by default restoring the said three mutations into effect. 12. In passing the order dated 31.10.2014, the revisional authority of the Financial Commissioner, (Revenue) Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar came to refer to section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Svt 1996 which provides for review powers of a Revenue Officer of a class below that of a Collector. 13. To this effect, the revisional authority of the Financial Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir, (Revenue) Srinagar approved the action of the Naib Tehsildar in seeking permission for exercising review jurisdiction but it is post seeking the permission for undertaking the exercise of review jurisdiction that the revisional authority of the Financial Commissioner, (Revenue) Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar found fault with the decision making on the part of the Naib Tehsildar that without affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides and without also finding any mistake or error apparent on the record of the case warranting a review, the Naib Tehsildar concerned by a mechanical exercise of discretion and decision passed the order dated 12.10.2006 of cancelling the said three mutations. 14. It is against this outcome of the revision proceedings from the end of the Financial Commissioner, (Revenue) Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar that the petitioners, who are from the branch of Mst. Azi and Mohammad Abdullah Jan, came forward with the institution of the present writ petition obviously intending to get the revival of order dated 12.10.2006 of the Naib Tehsildar concerned in terms whereof all the three mutations were put to cancellation, whereas the private respondents No. 3 to 9, being of the branch of Mohammad Abullah Jan and Mst. Mugli, intending to defend the order dated 31.10.2014 of the Financial Commissioner, (Revenue) Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar. 15. Once, the Financial Commissioner, (Revenue) Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar under J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt 1996 had the canvass open before him, then Financial Commissioner, (Revenue) Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar ought not to have restricted his gaze only to the extent of the order dated 12.10.2006 of the Naib Tehsildar concerned in cancelling three mutations but should have enlarged it to see as to whether there was any justification in the eyes of law backed by facts that a purported sale deed of 1935 being presented for mutation in the year 2006, a purportedly Tamlik nama (Relinquishment Deed) of 1971 again presented for attestation of mutation in the year 2006 and then a purported sale deed of 1992 also getting presented for mutation in the year 2006 and coincidently all the mutations getting attested on a single date of 07.09.2006. 16. If the Financial Commissioner, (Revenue) Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar would have stretched his revisional indulgence to this aspect of the matter then surely the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Naib Tehsildar concerned in recalling the three attested mutations would have self-defended the exercise of prudence on the part of Naib Tehsildar concerned. 17. There is no doubt to the fact that there are stakeholders on both sides to the estate and inheritance sourced to Gaffar Sheikh and then next to Mst. Azi. 18. The private respondents are not the direct descendant of Gaffar Sheikh and Mst. Azi, whereas the petitioners can claim to be so, and therefore at all relevant point of time, they were stakeholders in the matter of attestation of any mutation of inheritance by the revenue officials to be first summoned to putforth their claim with respect to the incident of attestation of mutation by reference to sale deed of 1935 AD, Tamlik nama of 1976 and Sale Deed of 1992. Page 7 of 8 19. Since all the three mutations by reference to the aforesaid three purported incidents got attested at the back of the petitioners and as such the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar ought to have exercised his revisional jurisdiction to cancel the said three mutations in suo moto discretion and then to direct a de novo enquiry into the matter by a Revenue Office of the rank of Tehsildar to go into the details of the matter and then to pass appropriate orders backed by and passed upon factual enquiry into the matter which would have served the ends of justice both in reference to the petitioners as well as to the private respondents having missed to do so, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J&K in exercise of revisional jurisdiction fell in manifest error of law and therefore to this extent, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.10.2024 of the Financial Commissioner, (Revenue) Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar is set aside along with three mutations No. 2009, 2011 & 2012 as well. 20. Parties i.e. petitioners as well as private respondents No. 3 to 9 are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) Srinagar on 29.04.2025 either in person or through their counsel along with certified copies of this judgment whereupon the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) Srinagar will assign the matter for enquiry to the concerned Tehsildar whosoever who shall then carry out the requisite enquiry de novo into the matter and pass the orders afresh. 21. Disposed of. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 19.03.2025. Hilal Ahmad