The power under Article 227 should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner through the medium of the present petition which has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking quashment of the order dated 06.06.1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Rajouri and also the order dated 06.09.2023 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Jammu in revision titled Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. Jeet Singh and Ors., whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, it would be advantageous to give a brief history of the case which has been projected by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

In Kharief 2007, Svt. BK and prior to that also, the father of the petitioner (Late Sh. Chandi Ram) was in cultivating possession over the land measuring 28 kanals falling in khasra No. 331 situated at Bal Shama Tehsil Sunderbani, District Rajouri. After coming into force of The Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estate Abolition Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “BLEA Act”), the father of the petitioner namely Late Sh. Chandi Ram had been granted ownership rights in view of section 5 of BLEA Act with respect to the aforesaid land and mutation no. 101 dated 23.06.1957 came to be attested in favour of the Late Sh. Chandi Ram with respect to the aforesaid land. The factum of possession of the Late Sh. Chandi Ram came to be inserted in Khasra Girdawari and record of rights as prepared from time to time by the revenue department. The rights of the respondents in the aforesaid land had been extinguished under section 4 as proprietors under the BLEA Act in view of the fact that the land measuring 28 Kanals falling in khasra no. 331 was exclusively cultivated by Late Sh. Chandi Ram prior to and in crucial date of Kharief 2007 Svt. BK. The further case of the petitioner is that Late Garib Singh (Son of Late Sh. Shiv Ram) who's father’s proprietary rights qua the aforesaid land had been extinguished under section 4 of BLEA Act resulting into transfer of the rights under section 5 of the BLEA Act in favour of Late Sh. Chandi Ram, had filed an application for (Sehat Kaasht) on 03.06.1998 before the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue (ACR), Rajouri. Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Jammu has passed order on 06.06.1998, whereby mutation no. 455 with respect to 9 Kanals 9 Marlas out of 28 Kanals already occupied and possessed by Late Sh. Chandi Ram by way of mutation no. 101 dated 23.06.1957, has attested in favour of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved of order dated 06.06.1998, the father of the petitioner filed a revision before the Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu on 25.06.1998 and the same was dismissed on 18.11.2000. Feeling aggrieved thereby, a revision was preferred before the learned Financial Commissioner, Jammu on 04.01.2001 and the same was dismissed on 06.09.2023.

4. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

5. It is an admitted case where the petitioner having lost before three forums, has chosen to file the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for invoking the supervisory powers of this Court on false and flimsy grounds.

6. The petitioner in the instant petition, has admitted that the Assistant Commissioner, Rajouri has passed the order dated 06.06.1998, whereby, the mutation No. 455 with respect to land measuring 09Kanals and 09Marlas out of 28 kanals falling under Khasra No 331, already occupied and possessed by Late Sh. Chandi Ram by way of mutation No. 101 dated 23.06.1957 has attested in favour of the respondents and being aggrieved of the said order, father of the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jammu on 25.06.1998 and the same was also dismissed on 18.11.2000.

7. The said order, although, has been referred but the same has not been challenged nor placed on record. The petitioner has deliberately n