Petitioner, by the medium of this petition, lias sought quashment of the order dated 1st October, 1985 passed by Financial Commissioner, Jammu & Kashmir State in a review petition whereby and whereunder order dated 8th May, 1984 passed by it in the revision petition came to be reviewed and order dated 12th May, 1983 of Divisional Commissioner and order of mutation No.398 (succession mutation) passed by Naib Tehsildar, Srinagar, came to be confirmed.

2. It appears that one Gaffar Ganaie S/O Qadir Ganaie R/O Telbal, Srinagar, died leaving behind four daughters, namely, Mst. Zooni, Mst. Jani, Mst. Ashmi and Mst. Khati. Mutation of succession came to be passed in favour of Mst. Zooni being khana-nisheen daughter vide mutation No.259. It appears that Mst. Zooni died issueless and mutation order No.398 came to be passed by Naib Tehsildar in favour of Mohammad Ganaie and Jamal Ganaie, sons of Sultan Ganaie excluding the sisters of Mst. Zooni deceased- other daughters of Gaffar Ganaie. Petitioner and Mst. Khati filed a revision petition against mutation No.398 of Village Talbal before Divisional Commissioner on 19th June, 1988 after lapse of at least 27 years. The said revision petition came to be dismissed.

3. Feeling aggrieved of the said order Mst. Mali and Mst. Khati and Mohammad Sidiq son of Mst. Ashmi filed revision petition before Financial Commissioner, Jammu & Kashmir State, Srinagar which came to be allowed and the order of Divisional Commissioner and mutation No.398 came to be set-aside and the matter came to be remanded to Tehsildar Srinagar, for attesting the mutation afresh and parties were directed to appear before Tehsildar, Srinagar on 22nd June, 1984. Respondents 4 and 5, sons of Sultan Ganaie, filed a review petition before the Financial J&K State, Srinagar which came to be allowed and thereby order dated 28th May, 1984 passed by Financial Commissioner came to be reviewed and orders of Divisional Commissioner and mutation No.398 came to be upheld.

4. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the whole estate of Mst. Zooni had devolved upon daughters, namely, Mst. Mali, Mst. Khati and Mst. Ashmi of Gaffar Ganaie but the Naib Tehsildar, on the basis of some alleged compromise before the civil court, passed a mutation order No.398 dated 27lh May, 1950 which is against law. Naib Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to attest such kind of mutation(s). The petitioner was not party in civil suit in which compromise was arrived at as alleged. No ground for reviewing the order dated 28th May, 1984 was available to the respondents 4 and 5.

Heard. Perused. Considered.

5. It appears that mutation order came to be challenged after lapse of more than 27 years. The revision petitions were barred by time. The question of limitation was not discussed by Financial Commissioner in the order dated 28th May, 1984. Thus, this was a mistake apparent on the face of record. Financial Commissioner had held vide order dated 28th May, 1984 that Naib Tehsildar was not competent to pass mutation of succession which was not also correct because at the time of attestation of mutation order i.e., prior to 1962, Naib Tehsildar had powers, jurisdiction and was competent to pass and attest succession mutations. In the year 1962 a proviso to sub-clause (4) of Section 24 Land Revenue Act, for short the Act, came to be added which read as under:

"24. Making of that part of the annual record which relates to landholders, assignees of revenue and occupancy tenants. -

...............

(4) A Revenue officer shall from time to time inquire into the correctness of all entries in the register of mutations and into all such acquisitions as aforesaid coming to his knowledge of which under the foregoing sub-sections, report should have been made to the patwari and an entry made in that register, and shall in each case make such order as he things fit with respect to the entry in the annual record of the right acquired:

[Provided that the Government may by rules curtail, limit o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document