The transfer of immovable property must be done through a duly registered deed, and oral statements or admission in mutation proceedings do not confer any title.

JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. Financial Commissioner, (Revenue), J & K, Srinagar-respondent No. 1 herein, passed an order dated 20th August 2008 on a Reference made by Settlement Commissioner regarding Revision Petition against the order of Naib Tehsildar passed on mutation No. 51, dated 7th April 1981 of village Sangrama and order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sopore dated 16th March 2004. It is this order of which petitioner is aggrieved at and seeks quashment thereof.

2. Petitioner is sister of Jabbar Malik son of Aziz Malik resident of Sangrama, Tehsil Sopore -- respondent No. 2 herein. According to petitioner respondent No. 2 is bent upon to deprive her of the property left behind by their father, Aziz Malik, who on his death was survived by petitioner, respondent No. 2 and Shahmali (wife). Aziz Malik has left behind landed property situated at village Sangrama Tehsil Sopore. Petitioner claims that at her back and without jurisdiction, Naib Tehsildar, Sangrama, vide mutation No. 51, transferred her share in favour of respondent No. 2. The moment she acquired knowledge in the year 2002, she filed an appeal against the mutation order before Collector, SDM, Sopore, along with an application for condonation of delay, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 16th March 2004. Petitioner maintains that she, however, came to know later that Collector, SDM, lacks in jurisdiction to decide the matter. She thereafter filed a revision petition before Settlement Commissioner, Kashmir, Srinagar, against mutation order No. 51 as well as against order of Collector, SDM, which was allowed vide order dated 4th October 2004. Settlement Commissioner, however, referred the matter to respondent No. 1 in terms of Section 15(4) of Land Revenue Act. Respondent No. 1 declined to accept the Reference made by Settlement Commissioner and dismissed revision petition vide order dated 20th August 2008.

3. Respondent No. 1 in his Reply states that petitioner has relinquished her share and to this effect she received due consideration and executed relinquishment deed dated 12th October 1983. Respondent No. 2 insists that there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by mutating officer and mutating officer explained petitioner that she would not be deprived for her share in case she was willing to attest mutation in her favour. Petitioner is stated to have expressed her consent and in presence of witnesses, she requested mutating officer that she relinquished from her share and wanted attestation of mutation only in her brother's name. These statements, according to respondent No. 2, were recorded in mutation order. It is next urged that petitioner thereafter executed a deed in support of mutation on 12th October 1983, and petitioner, at no stage, threw down the gauntlet on relinquishment deed executed by her and petitioner was not minor at the time of receiving consideration for her share and being competent and major woman, she decided to receive consideration to the full extent and as per prevailing market rates for her share and decided to give relinquishment deed qua her share. The Collector, SDM, is averred to have passed a reasoned order and applied judicial mind.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties, perused the record and considered the matter.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner states that mutation No. 51 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as mutation can be attested when transferee has acquired title of land by inheritance or by way of some other valid mode, i.e. by execution of registered document and in present case land had already been inherited by petitioner and respondent No. 2 from their father and mutation to that effect was already attested. He further states that land, inherited by petitioner, could have been mutated in favour of respondent only when petitioner would have executed a registered deed in his favour and mutation order indicates that petitioner was diverted of her rights for two reasons, firstly because she was married