The decision on the validity of mutations in mutation proceedings does not affect the title to the property and is subject to the decree of a civil court.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J. - The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgement dated 27.06.2016 passed by the learned Writ Court in a writ petition filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants against the respondents. In the said writ petition, the writ petitioner had challenged order dated 28th March, 2005, passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby orders recorded on ten separate mutations had been set aside. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Writ Court has, while upholding the order of the Financial Commissioner, dismissed the writ petition.

2. According to the appellants, respondent No.2 had executed an oral gift in respect of various parcels of land situated at Village Kralpora in favour of the writ petitioner, regarding which ten separate mutations were attested. The details of these mutations are given as under:

1. Mutation No.3017 dated 04.06.1998 for land measuring 3 kanal 12 marlas covered by survey No.1904/1894/1855/1092;

2. Mutation No.3018 dated 04.06.1998 for land measuring 2 kanals under survey No.1089.

3. Mutation No.3019 dated 04.06.1998 for land measuring 1 kanals 16 marlas under survey Nos.1089-min(1 kanal 8 marlas) and 1901/1891/1090 (12 marlas).

4. Mutation No.3020 dated 04.06.1998 for the land measuring 2 kanals under survey Nos.1091/ 1891/ 1090(8 marlas) and 1904/1894/1855/1092 (1 kanal 12 marlas).

5. Mutation No.3080 dated 31.12.1998 for land measuring 2 kanals 12 marlas covered by survey No.1091.

6. Mutation No.3081 dated 04.01.1999 for land measuring 2 kanals 15 marlas under survey No.1091.

7. Mutation No.3083 dated 04.01.1999 for the land measuring 1 kanal 9 marlas under survey No.1125(10 marlas) and 1132(19 marlas).

8. Mutation No.3078 dated 6.1.1999 for the land measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas falling under survey No.1124.

9. Mutation No.3079 dated 6.1.1999 for the land measuring 3 kanals 17 marlas covered by survey No.1130(1 kanal 12 marlas) and 1131 (2 kanals 5 marlas).

10. Mutation No.3082 dated 6.1.1999 for the land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas under survey No.1123(2 kanal 5 marlas.

3. Respondent No.2 challenged the aforesaid mutations by filing a petition before respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner, on the ground that these mutations are fictitious in nature. An enquiry into the matter was directed by respondent No.1 and Assistant Settlement Officer, Kashmir, after holding the enquiry, submitted his report. As per the said report, ten mutations attested in favour of the writ petitioner on different dates bear the signatures of same set of witnesses in similar ink. It was further reported that the signatures of the witnesses and respondent No.2 were obtained on blank forms and the procedure prescribed under Standing Order 23-A was not followed. Acting on the aforesaid report, the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 28th March, 2005, set aside all the ten mutations. This order was challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant before the learned Writ Court.

4. Vide the impugned judgment, it has been observed by the learned Writ Court that the Financial Commissioner has appreciated the matter in its correct perspective. The Writ Court further held that the mutations have been attested in derogation of the procedure prescribed under Standing Order 23-A, as such, the same are not sustainable. Accordingly, while upholding the order of the Financial Commissioner, the writ petition has been dismissed.

5. The appellants, who happen to be the successors-in-interest of the writ petitioner, have challenged the judgment of the Writ Court on the ground that the writ petitioner had, in fact, paid the sale consideration in respect of the land in question to respondent No.2 though the mode of transfer was nomenclatured as oral gift, as the same was considered as one of the safest modes of transfer of ownership of the land. It has been further contended that after receiving the amount of sale consideration, the possession of the land was handed over by respondent No.2 to th