1 S. No. 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR OWP 1161/2018 CM(2887/2023) TAWAB AHMAD GANAI …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shahreyar, Advocate. Vs. REVENUE(State Government) ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA for R 1 to 5. Mr. Mohd Ayoub Bhat, Advocate with Ms. Mehajabeen, Advocates for R 6 to 9. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 27.03.2025 (ORAL) 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner herein seeks for the following reliefs: - By issuance of a writ of Certiorari, the impugned order dated 23.07.2005 (Annexure-C supra) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam in an Appeal titled Mst. Saja & Ors vs. Tawab Ahmad Ganai & Ors and the order dated 24-01-2018 (Annexure-F supra) passed by the Joint Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K Srinagar in Revision titled Tawab Ahmad Ganai vs. Mst. Saja & Ors may be quashed/set aside. 2. The background facts under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed and as emerge from the record are that one Mst. Noori, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and private respondents herein being their mother, owned landed property measuring 42 kanals covered under Survey No.235 (old) and 465 (new) situated at Chowdhari Gund Chadoora, Budgam whereupon mutation No. 4, dated 20th of November 2003, came to be attested by Naib Tehsildar Chadoora in respect of the said estate of the said Mst. Noori, however, in favour of the petitioner herein and respondent 9 2 herein excluding the rest of the legal heirs of said Mst. Noori being the respondents 6 to 8, herein. 3. Aggrieved of the attestation of the said mutation dated 20th of November 2003, respondents 6 to 8 herein preferred a time barred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Budgam on the premise that the landed estate of their mother was required to be distributed amongst all legal heirs, being the petitioners and respondent 6 to 9 herein in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law. The said appeal came to be decided by the appellate authority in terms of order dated 23rd of July 2005, and while allowing the same, after condoning delay thereof the mutation in question came to be setaside, primarily on the ground that the same had been attested by an incompetent officer and consequently remanded the matter to Tehsildar Chadoora for conducting fresh inquiry and passing fresh orders in accordance with law. 4. The petitioner herein and respondent 9 herein aggrieved of the order of the Deputy Commissioner preferred a revision petition on 11.08.2005 before the revisional forum being respondent 2 herein which revision petition had got initially dismissed in default and finally decided on merits on 24th of January, 2018 dismissing the same, upholding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 23rd of July, 2005. 5. The petitioner herein has alone challenged in the instant petition the impugned orders and has impleaded his co-beneficiary of the Mutation 4 in question as party respondent 9 herein in the instant petition. 3 6. Objections to the petition have been filed wherein the petition is being opposed and the impugned orders defended on the premise that the orders under challenge came to be passed validly and legally by the forums below. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is an admitted fact emerging from the record that the petitioner herein and respondent 6 to 9 herein, are the legal heirs of Mst. Noori their mother, who owned land measuring 42 kanals referred in the preceding paras. 8. It is also not in dispute that the said landed estate of Mst. Noori came to be got devolved upon the petitioner and respondent 9 herein alone upon attestation of mutation 4 supra on 20th of November, 2023 excluding the rest of the legal heirs of Mst. Noori. Perusal of the said mutation 4 a copy whereof came to be produced by the counsel for the respondents during the hearing of the instant petition, reveals that the same has been attested by the Naib Tehsildar on 20th of November 2003, and although the respondents 6 to 8 herein have been shown to be present on the date of attestation of said mutation, yet the fact remains that mutation has been attested in breach and violation of the provisions of Standing Order 23-A. Further perusal of the said mutation reveals that a will deed has been referred and relied upon therein claimed to have been executed by Mst. Noori so much so, even partition has also been referred in the said mutation, and fact remains neither the said will nor the deed of partition has been produced before the Naib Tehsildar at the time of 4 attestation of mutation 4 supra, which thus ex-facie seems to have been attested on the basis of verbal statements made without any authentication. 9. Record would further reveal that the appellate forum being respondent 3 herein has validly and legally taken into consideration the said facts of non-production and non-existence of will-deed or else the partition deed, inasmuch as incompetence of the Naib Tehsildar to attest the mutation in question. Further perusal of the impugned order dated 24th of January 2018 passed by the Financial Commissioner as well demonstrates that the Financial Commissioner has also not been oblivious to said facts inasmuch as the law applicable to the parties being Shariat Act of 2007 and rightly summed up that the order of the Deputy Commissioner does not call for any interference. 10. In view of the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, inasmuch as the concurrent orders passed by the forums below, this Court has no reason to disagree with the conclusions drawn by the said forums while passing impugned orders. 11. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 27.03.2025 Ishaq Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether approved for reporting ? Yes/No