The court upheld the legality of mutation under Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act and emphasized the importance of proper authority in attesting mutations.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Kashmir in revision petition titled Mushtaq Ahmed Khan v. Hajira and others ["impugned order"].

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as projected by the petitioner in the petition, are that the petitioner purchased a piece of land measuring 6 kanal 12 marlas covered under Survey Nos.2164, 2142, 2185, 2200, 2231 and 2232 situated at village Hyhama Tehsil and district Kupwara ["the subject land"] from respondent No.3 and the same was subsequently mutated in the name of the petitioner.

3. Respondent No. 2, it is claimed, in the year 2002 filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara challenging mutation No. 1891, dated 01.06.2001 on the ground that respondent No.2 being a khananasheen daughter was entitled to inherit the property of the father of the parties. The appeal was disposed of by the Additional Deputy Commissioner vide its order dated 12.05.2012. The impugned mutation was set aside. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition in terms of Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Kashmir. The Financial Commissioner, too, did not agree with the writ petitioner and eventually dismissed the revision petition vide order impugned in this petition. It is this order of the Financial Commissioner which the petitioner has challenged in this petition, inter alia, on the ground that the forums below have not appreciated that the petitioner was in possession of the subject land having purchased the same prior to 2000 from respondent No.3 and therefore, he could not have been divested of his right, which had been duly mutated in his favour and that the impugned order was passed by the Financial Commissioner without affording him any opportunity of being heard.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, I do not find it a fit case to exercise the writ jurisdiction vested in this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Collector (Additional Deputy Commissioner) Kupwara and Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Kashmir.

5. The Financial Commissioner has rightly observed in the order impugned that the mutation impugned before the Collector which was later on set aside was attested by the mutating officer on the ground that village Hyhama, where the subject land situates, had been taken up for settlement operation and that during settlement operation the petitioner was found to be in possession and, accordingly, mutation under Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act conferring upon him the ownership rights was attested. From the impugned mutation, it clearly transpires that the same was not attested pursuant to any valid sale deed executed by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner and was attested by having resort to Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act.

6. In the instant case, as is rightly held by both the forums below, estate of Late Gani Dar was attested by way of inheritance mutation on 01.06.2001, therefore, at the time of attestation of the impugned mutation, respondent No. 3-Mst. Saja had no right to dispose of the estate of Gani Dar. It is, thus, held by both the forums below that respondent No.2 being a khananasheen daughter of estate holder Gani Dar, alone was entitled to inherit the property and, therefore, other daughters including respondent No.3-Mst.Saja was not competent in law to transfer any part of the estate of Late Gani Dar. It is seen that it is because of this reason only, no sale deed was ever executed between the parties and mutation was attested by having resort to Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act. Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act can be resorted to only if during the course of settlement operation a dispute arises with regard to title, it can be d