1. Petitioners have challenged order dated 6-7-1994 passed by Financial Commissioner, J&K Government, (respondent no. 1), whereby order passed by Director Land Records with powers of Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, came to be up-held. In order to appreciate the matter in its right perspective, narration of the brief facts of the case is necessary.

2. Malla Rahman, the estate holder R/O Watlar Ganderbal, died leaving behind sons Samad, Subhan and Shaban. His legacy was mutated by the revenue agencies in favour of Samad, Shaban and Subhan in equal shares. Shaban died leaving behind Mst. Khurshi widow and Qadir, son. Subhan also died leaving behind Habib (son). Samad also died leaving behind Mst. Mali and Mst. Zeba as Khananishin daughters.

3. It appears that Habib had contracted marriage with Mst. Khurshi D/O Shaban. Habib died issueless leaving behind Mst. Khurshi, widow. At that point of time, Shaban and Samad were alive as alleged. The legacy of Habib came to be mutated in favour of widow Khurshi. Said fact was not challenged either by Samad or by Shaban. There-after Mst. Khurshi also died and her property came to be mutated in favour of Qadir S/O Shaban vide mutation No. 278 dated 15-8-1958. This mutation was set aside by the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 7-12-1977 with the direction to Tehsildar, Ganderbal to hold enquiry. Accordingly Tehsildar conducted enquiry and passed order dated 2-2-1979 which came to be assailed before Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, who transferred the same to Assistant Commissioner, Srinagar who set aside the impugned dated 2-2-1979 and directed the mutation to be effected in favour of heirs of Maalla Shaban and Malla Samad in equal shares, so far it related to the property left by Malla Habib as per annexure-P/3.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, parties preferred appeals before Director Land Records -- Divisional Commissioner. It appears that the present petitioners had also filed appeal while as one Ramzan, Subhan and Khazir sons of Malla Qadir had also filed another appeal against the order dated 2-7-1979. The Divisional Commissioner decided both the appeals holding that mutations could not be affected in favour of the petitioners and accordingly set aside the orders impugned in the appeal and directed that the entire estate of Khurshi widow of Shaban be mutated in favour of heirs of Qadir, viz. respondents 3 to 6. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners preferred revision petition before Financial Commissioner, which came to be dismissed and upholding the order of Director Land Records with powers of Divisional Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Director Land Records with powers of Divisional Commissioner, petitioners filed revision petition before the respondent no. 1 which came to be dismissed and the order of Director Land Records with powers of Divisional Commissioner, came to be up-held.

5. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioners have challenged the order of respondent no. 1 through the medium of present writ petition on the grounds taken in the writ petition. It is in place to mention here that the petitioners have prayed that the mutation be affected in their favour and the order passed by Assistant Commissioner dated 25-2-1985 be restored and had also prayed that respondents be directed to hand over the possession to the petitioners.

6. Who is entitled to possession is a disputed question of fact which can not be gone into by this court in its writ jurisdiction. I am fortified in my view by a judgement of the apex court delivered in case State of Karnataka Vs. KGSD Canteen Employees, 2002 AIR SCW 212. Again the apex court in case Antonio S.C.Pereira Vs. Richardina Noronha (D), 2006 AIR SCW 5155, held that disputed question of title can not be gone through by the writ court and it is for the civil court to decide the question(s) of title. It is profitable to reproduce relevant portion of the judgement hereunder:-

"....It is now trite that ordinarily a wri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document