1. This petition under Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by one Rasheeda Akhtar for quashing the order passed by Ld. Financial Commissioner dated 14.6.2005 in revision petition titled Syed Jalal-ud-din Shah v. Rasheeda Akhtar by means of which mutation No. 620 dated 13.1.1977 ordered by the Naib Tehsildar Chadoora and mutation No. 1170 dated 16.1.1979 ordered by the Tehsildar Chadoora were set aside.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are as under:-

Parties namely Rasheed Akhtar W/o Syed Abdul Rashid Qadiri R/o Lasjan (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) and Syed Jalal-ud-din S/o Syed Mustaffa R/o Lasjan (hereinafter referred to as the respondent no. 2) are the descendants of one Syed Kabir who had some landed property at village Lasjan Tehsil Chadoora District Budgam Kashmir. Syed Kabir had two sons namely Mohd. Syed and Syed Mustafa who inherited the estate of Syed Kabir. Mohd. Syed died issueless whileas the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are the issues of Syed Mustafa. By means of mutation No. 620 dated 13.1.1977, the land left by late Syed Mustafa was mutated in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in equal shares. The petitioner claimed and got 1/2 of the share as a Khan-nisheen daughter. By means of the second mutation No. 1170 dated 16.1.1979 the property of late Mohd. Syed, the uncle of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was also mutated in their favour in equal shares. The mutation was effected in their favour as Mohd. Syed had died issueless without leaving behind a widow. Respondent No. 2 challenged both the mutations by means of the two revision petitions which were heard and disposed of by the Financial Commissioner by means of the impugned order dated 14.1.2005.

3. The learned Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that the impugned mutations have not been attested correctly in terms of the law. He, therefore, accepted the revision petitions and set aside the impugned mutations. He remanded the case back to the Tehsildar Chadoora for fresh enquiry and orders in terms of law.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Financial Commissioner the petitioner has through the medium of this revision petition challenged the same on three main grounds; firstly that the revision petitions have been filed beyond the period of limitation without applying for condoning the delay but the learned Financial Commissioner has condoned the delay of more than 15 years on the ground that it could not be ascertained from the Part Sarkar as to whether the respondent was present at the time of attestation of mutation or not; secondly that the Financial Commissioner while setting aside the mutations has taken resort to the personal law of the parties and found that the parties being Syeds, the customary law was not applicable to them. The Commissioner by holding that the parties were not governed by the customary law has exceeded its finding jurisdiction as it is only a civil court who can adjudicate upon such an issue; thirdly that the finding of the Financial Commissioner that the mutation was attested by Naib Tehsildar as such is non-est in the eye of law was not correct. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order impugned passed by the learned Financial Commissioner.

5. Heard. I have considered the matter. The ld. Financial Commissioner has while dealing with the matter and arriving at the conclusion given due reasons to set aside the impugned mutation orders.

6. So far mutation No. 620 is concerned the same has been attested by the Naib Tehsildar. The Financial Commissioner found that under Standing Order 23-A in cases involving Khannisheen status of a daughter the mutation is to be attested by a Tehsildar only. Since the impugned mutation was attested by the Naib Tehsildar, he found that the same was without jurisdiction and non-est. So far the other mutation was concerned th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document