The main legal point established in the judgment is the procedural requirements and limitations on the powers of the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, Samvat, 1996, emphasizing the need for an opportunity of being heard before reversing or modifying any proceedings or order affecting any question of right between private persons.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners have called in question order dated 17th March, 2021 passed by Joint Financial Commissioner [respondent No.2] in the reference titled 'Khazir Koka vs. Majid and others' and order dated 21st January, 2021 passed by Commissioner Survey and Land Records [respondent No.3].

2. Briefly put, the relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Anantnag, for partition of land falling under Survey No.69 (7K-6M), 71(4K-9M), 72(5K10M) and 66(4K-16M) of Estate Chaki Hussan Abad Tehsil Anantnag [hereinafter referred to as the subject land]. This application was filed against one Majeed Hassan, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents. The application was entertained by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, who, vide his order dated 26th April, 2010, while issuing notice to the nonapplicants for filing objections also provided by way of interim arrangement that the parties shall not cause any interference, change in the existing revenue entries and fell trees or alienate the subject land till filing of objections.

3. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a transfer application before the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. The transfer application was entertained by the District Collector, who vide his order dated 12th June, 2014, directed the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Anantnag, to proceed in the matter after providing an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

4. It appears that when nothing was done by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Anantnag, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a transfer application before respondent No.3. The respondent No.3, vide his order dated 26th June, 2014, called upon Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Anantnag, to file para-wise reply and also directed the stay of proceedings before him. It is alleged that despite being aware of the order dated 26th June, 2014, passed by respondent No.3, the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, disposed of the application for partition in terms of Section 105 of the Land Revenue Act, Samvat, 1996 ['the Act'], by holding that the partition was not possible and, therefore, it would be appropriate for the applicant, the predecessorin-interest of the petitioners, to file a suit for possession before the competent court of law. This was done by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, vide his order dated 27th June, 2014.

5. The aforesaid order was assailed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners before respondent No.3 under Section 15 of the Act. The revision petition was accepted by respondent No.3 and vide order dated 07.12.2020, respondent No.3 proposed to set aside the impugned order passed by Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, and accordingly, made reference to respondent No.2 with his recommendation that the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, be directed to consider the partition application under Section 105 of the Act and pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties treating the disputed property as being the proprietary land of father of both the contesting parties. The file was, accordingly, sent to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, which, in turn, was assigned to Joint Financial Commissioner, Revenue, for disposal.

6. While the Joint Financial Commissioner was seized of the reference, the private respondents herein filed a review petition before respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 vide his order dated 8th January, 2021, declined to entertain the review petition on the ground that the file had been submitted to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, for confirmation and, therefore, he was not in a position to pass any order on the review petition till the orders are passed by the Financial Commissioner. In view of this, the review petition was disposed of.

7. It appears that after disposing of the review petition, the respondent No.3 a