The correction of land records must follow statutory procedures under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act, and orders issued against deceased individuals are void.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition, the petitioner herein, has challenged the order passed by respondent No. 2, viz the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J&K, Srinagar dated 28.01.2015, on the ground that the same has been passed against a dead person in exercise of the proceedings, devoid of jurisdiction.

Factual matrix

2. It is stated that last Settlement conducted for village Kralpora under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, was completed and duly published in the year 2008. In the Record of Rights prepared during the Settlement process, land measuring 02 Kanals and 01 Marla covered by old Survey No. 690 was assigned two new Survey Nos., 975 and 977. The father of the petitioner had constructed a residential house and a Cow Shed over the said land.

3. It is stated that the respondent No. 5, had filed an application before the subordinate revenue authorities claiming that a Khoul, locally known as “Wehen” viz a small stream, was passing through Survey No. 690 and the same has been deleted in the Record of Rights prepared in the year 2008, therefore, it was prayed that the Record of Rights be accordingly corrected. It is also stated that the Patwari concerned is said to have reported a “Fardi Badr” alleging that the “Khoul” was recorded in old Survey number, which does not exist in the new Record of Rights. The matter was referred to Naib Tehsildar, who sent it to the Tehsildar concerned and ultimately the matter landed in the office of Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Budgam, on 22.04.2023, who considered the same and reported that father of the petitioner had obtained 02 Kanals and 01 Marla of land through a gift, out of Survey No. 690, but in the new Record of Rights, he is shown as owner only to the extent of 01 Kanal and 18 Marlas with the deficiency of 03 Marlas. It is averred that the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) however, stated that no “Fardi Badr” about the deficiency has been reported with regard to the land of Bashir Ahmad, viz father of the petitioner. The matter was as such referred to Tehsildar, Chadoora for summoning the parties for conducting spot inspection.

4. It is stated that the respondent No. 5, had already filed a suit in which he had raised the plea that there was a stream recorded in the old record in Survey No. 690, but the same does not figure in the new records. It is also averred therein that respondent No. 5 had applied before the revenue authorities under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act for redressal of his grievances. The said suit of the respondent No. 5, did not succeed in obtaining any interim direction from the civil Court with regard to the existence of Khoul/stream and it was, ultimately, dismissed in default on 14.03.2012.

5. The matter which was referred by Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Budgam, for inspection, to Tehsildar concerned, resulted in preparing a “Fardi Badr” and the Deputy Commissioner by a one-line order dated Nil, directed that entry be made in the Record of Rights about the stream running through old Survey No. 690. It is stated in the order that as per the recommendation of subordinate officer and perusal of the record, the correction is ordered for recording 05 Marlas of land as concession (Gair Mumkin Khul).

6. It is further stated that the petitioner challenged the said order through a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner on the ground that the Record of Rights can be changed only by filing a regular suit under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act, before the Collector within a period of one year, but no such suit had been filed. The proceedings have been conducted on a time barred application and the suit filed by respondent No. 5 has also been dismissed by the Civil Court on 14.03.2012. It is stated that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was without jurisdiction and non-est in the eyes of law. It is further averred that the learned Financial Commissioner has dismissed the revision petition even though he has held that the proceedings continued