The court emphasized the importance of addressing the question of limitation and maintainability of proceedings before delving into the merits of the appeals/revisions.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J. - The appellant has challenged order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Writ Court in WP(C) No.1917/2020 filed by the appellant, whereby the writ petition has been disposed of by extending the following directions:

1.That respondent No.1 shall take up all the appeals/revisions together for consideration and decide the same finally within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon him.

2. If for any reason, it is not possible to dispose of all the appeals/revisions within the period aforesaid, the objection of the petitioner to the maintainability of these petitions on account of delay as also his request for vacation of stay shall be positively disposed of by the aforesaid period.

2. It appears that appellant had invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging the proceedings in the appeals and revision petitions filed by respondent No.2 before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K, Srinagar. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said proceedings, respondent No.2 had challenged mutation orders of Estate Sonwar Srinagar, in respect of land under Survey No.1100/945/802 measuring 05 kanals 01 marlas and 96 sqft., attested by Tehsildar, Agrarian Reforms, Srinagar.

3. The appellant challenged the proceedings pending before respondent No. 2 before the Writ Court on the grounds that the mutations under challenge have already been declared final by the High Court vide judgment dated 23.09.1988, passed in revision petition titled 'Estates Officer vs. K. K. Amla', that was passed in relation to the eviction proceedings initiated against respondent No.4 herein, with regard to the same land. Vide the aforesaid judgment of this Hon'ble Court, judgment dated 23.05.1987 passed by District Judge, Srinagar, has been upheld and it was observed that the land in question was never in possession of the Defence Authorities. It was further contended by the appellant that in view of the aforesaid finding of the Civil Court, respondent No.2 cannot claim that he had leased out the land in question to the Defence Authorities and he cannot claim that he had no knowledge about the mutations. It was also contended that order dated 27.11.2020 passed by respondent No.1 in the impugned proceedings is not in accordance with law, inasmuch as the said order has been passed without hearing the appellant. Vide the said order, respondent No.1 has allowed two applications of respondent No.2, one seeking implementation of the order and the other seeking summoning of the record pertaining to disputed land from the Cantonment Authorities.

4. As already noted, the learned Writ Court, after hearing the parties, has directed respondent No.1 to take up all the appeals and revision petitions together for consideration and finally decide the same within a period of two months and it has been further provided that in case it is not possible to dispose of all the appeals and revision petitions within the aforesaid period, respondent No.1 shall at least decide the question of maintainability of the proceedings on account of delay as also his application for vacation of stay within the aforesaid period.

5. The appellant is aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the Writ Court on the grounds that the said order has been passed without proper appreciation of law and facts. It has been further contended that respondent No.1 does not have jurisdiction to reopen the impugned mutations because the issue has been finally decided by the judgment of the Civil Court as upheld by this Court and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Writ Court. It has also been contended that the learned Writ Court did not take into account the additional documents which the appellant had placed before the said Court at the time of deciding the matter. According to the appellant, two directions issued by the Writ Court are contradictory, inasmuch as in the first instance, the learned Writ Court has directed responde