1. The land measuring 05 Kanals and 10 Marlas covered by Survey no. 416, Khewat No. 26, situated at village tope Sherkhanian, Jammu owned by Daya Singh and Ors, is stated to have been sold vide 02 Sale deed. One shown to have been executed on 14-09-1982 and registered on the same date in favour of Sh. Krishan Lal, another is shown to have been executed on 20.09.1982 and registered on 14.10.1982 in favour of Vachaspati. Both of them are dead, so are survived by respondents no. 11 to 16, the legal heirs of Krishan Lal are shown to have executed a Sale deed on 03-03-2000 for land measuring 03 Kanals and 06 Marlas in favour of Pawan Gupta, (the petitioner) and by another sale deed shown to have been executed by Vachaspati on 03-03-2000 for land measuring 02 Kanals and 04 Marlas are sold in favour of the petitioner.

2. Based on the first two Sale Deeds executed in the year 1982 in favour of Krishan Lal and Vachaspati, Mutation no. 7375 and 7392 have been attested on 19.12.1999. Mutations regarding subsequent Sale Deeds in favour of the petitioner bearing No. 7487 and 7482 have been attested on 26-04-2000. All the said Mutations have been challenged before the Financial Commissioner by the medium of two separate revision petitions. Ld. Financial Commissioner has set aside the mutation orders opining therein that the said orders are illegal, defective and without jurisdiction.

3. Petitioner aggrieved by the said order passed by the Financial Commissioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction.

4. The appearing counsel for the petitioner would first contend that the petitioner has been condemned unheard, as he was neither arrayed as a party nor any notice was served upon him. Therefore, the order is bad.

5. Secondly contended that the mutation orders attested in his favour based on the 02 Sale deeds were perfectly justified. The petitioner had purchased the land in question regarding which two proper Sale deeds have been executed and properly registered, so have been reflected in the revenue records, by means of attestation of mutations. There was nothing wrong which would warrant interference in revision by the Financial Commissioner.

6. Counsel appearing for the respondents while controverting the submissions of the appearing counsel for the petitioner contended that even if it is taken that the petitioner has not been heard by the Financial Commissioner, still hearing or without hearing him result would remain the same. As according to him, the first 02 Sale deeds executed in favour of Krishan Lal and Vachaspati, the certified copies of which are placed on the record are defective as in the said two Sale Deeds the Khasra number and land measuring 05 Kanals and 10 Marlas is not made mention of, same on perusal is found to be correct when it is so, the mutations based on such Sale Deeds could not be attested. Same appears to have been managed, as from the year 1982 till the year 1999 Mutation regarding the said Sale Deeds have not been attested. In the said two mutations bearing nos. 7375 and 7392 entry regarding the land covered by survey no. 416 as has been made mention of, appears to be quite suspicious and it is in this suspicious state of affairs in a planned manner, first mutation in the year 1999 have been attested then based on these suspicious Mutations and entries thereof in the revenue record, two Sale deeds in favour of the petitioner have been executed on 03-03-2000.

7. The position is further exposed by the fact that Sale Deeds are shown to have executed in the year 1982 whereas suspicious mutations have been attested on 19-12-1999. Then after a gap of 03 months i.e. on 03-03-2000, Sale Deeds in favour of the petitioner have been executed wherein the land covered by survey no. 416 is made mention of. When in the Sale Deeds executed in the year 1982 the survey no. 416, or the land measuring 05 Kanals and 10 Marlas was not mentioned, how the Vendee thereof would sell the said land under survey no. 416 in favour of the petitioner.

8.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document