The court emphasized that the issue of limitation must be resolved before considering the merits of a case, reinforcing procedural correctness in judicial decisions.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by Respondent No. 1 in File No. 1224/FC-AP titled “Gian Chand & Anr. Vs. Madan Lal & Ors.”, whereby the order dated 29.04.2017 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in File No. 57/Revision has been set aside along with Mutation No. 363 of Village Kundrorian, Katra, Reasi.

2. The short submission, which has been advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the Respondent No. 1 fell in grave error by allowing the revision petition on merits in spite of the fact that the preliminary objection was raised with regard to the issue of limitation and without deciding the question of limitation, the revision petition has been decided on merits, which according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner falls within the realm of perversity and is a fit case for this Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that prior to challenge the order dated 29.04.2017 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jammu before Respondent No. 1-Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J & K with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, J & K in File No. 57/Revision, Respondent No. 2 & 3 had challenged the same before the learned J & K Special Tribunal, Jammu by way of a revision petition being File No. STJ/173/2017 filed on 14.07.2017, which was withdrawn from the learned Tribunal vide order dated 27.04.2023 by moving an application, contending that the learned Tribunal was approached at the relevant point of time when Respondent No. 1 was not available in Jammu. This clear admission of the knowledge of the actual forum at the inception i.e. when the revision was filed on 14.07.2017 before Tribunal and still continuing for six long years before the Tribunal only to withdraw it on 27.04.2023, renders the revision petition time barred and this aspect of the matter has not been accorded due consideration by passing the impugned order by Respondent No. 1.

4. It has been vehemently argued that although the Respondent No. 1 has made a passing reference in the order impugned that there is a delay of more than sixty years in preferring the revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, yet this aspect of the matter has not been accorded due consideration and instead, the Respondent No.1 decided the matter on merits.

5. Without deciding the issue of limitation, which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner before Respondent No. 1, there is no whisper in the impugned order with respect to the delay of sixty years and on this ground alone, according to learned Senior Counsel, the order impugned cannot sustain the test of law and liable to be quashed.

6. It is further submitted that even on merits, the findings recorded by Respondent No. 1 is contrary to record.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. Prima facie, case for interim relief is made out.

8. Issue notice to the respondents.

9. Notice waived by Ms. Aparna Gupta, Assisting counsel to Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG on behalf of the official respondents. She seeks and is granted four weeks’ time to file response to the petition.

10. Now, notice shall go to private respondents only, returnable within four weeks, subject to filing of requisite steps within one week.

11. List on 25.09.2024.

12. Meanwhile, subject to objections from the other side and till next date of hearing before the Bench, the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in File No. 1224/FC-AP titled “Gian Chand & Anr. Vs. Madan Lal & Ors.” shall remain stayed.

Alteration/modification/vacation on motion.