The court upheld that existing documentary evidence must guide determinations of parentage and property rights, dismissing challenges based on procedural claims without substantive proof.

ORDER

11.08.2025

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition for challenging order dated

05.02.2019 passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue (Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) J&K, Jammu whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Survey and Land Records has been dismissed.

2. According to the petitioners, they had filed an appeal before the Court of Regional Director, Survey and Land Records for challenging the order of the Tehsildar dated 12.02.2009 passed on mutation No. 4 of village Chak Keema. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Regional Director vide his order dated 24.10.2014 and the revision petition against the said order has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. .

3. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioners while challenging mutation No. 4 before the Regional Director, Survey and Land Records as well as before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue had contended that respondent No. 6 Dev Raj is actually the son of Nandu and not the son of Tulsi Ram. It was contended that mutation No. 5 was attested in respect of the property comprising the land measuring 03 kanals 07 marlas falling under khasra No. 113 village Chak Keema Tehsil Bishnah in favour of the petitioners and their mother Smt. Koshalya Devi. The said mutation order was challenged by respondent-Dev Raj claiming himself to be the son of Tulsi Ram and not of Nandu before the Settlement Officer, Jammu who vide order dated 09.12.2005 set aside the said mutation order and remanded the case to the Tehsildar R.S Pura. On 12.02.2009, the Tehsildar Bishnah while attesting mutation on the basis of the remand order passed by the Settlement Officer, attested fresh mutation No. 4 thereby vesting the rights in favour of the property of Tulsi Ram in favour of petitioners as well as respondent No. 6-Dev Raj.

4. It also appears that respondent No. 6-Dev Raj had filed a suit before the Court of learned Munsiff, Bishnah seeking declaration that he is son of Tulsi Ram and as such, entitled inherit all his movable and immovable properties but the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on

07.03.2009.

5. Mutation No. 4 dated 12.02.2009 came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of an appeal before the Director, Survey and Land Records who, vide order dated 24.10.2014 dismissed the said appeal. The said order has been upheld by Financial Commissioner, Revenue (Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) J&K in terms of impugned order dated 05.02.2019.

6. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the civil suit filed by respondent No. 6 seeking declaration that he is son of Tulsi Ram has already been dismissed, as such, it has to be inferred that he is not son of Tulsi Ram. It has been further contended that the mutation No. 4 dated 12.02.2009 has been attested by the Tehsildar concerned in ex-parte without serving any notice upon the petitioners and that they have not been given opportunity of being heard. It has also been submitted that without there being a determination by Civil Court with regard to parentage of respondent No. 6, the mutation could not have been attested in his favour. It has also been contended that even as per the documents including the voter list, respondent No. 6 is not shown to be the son of Tulsi Ram and his parentage has been shown as Dev Raj. It has further been contended that in terms of mutation No. 5 dated 20.11.1974, property of Nandu has been shown to have been inherited by respondent No. 6 and his two brothers along with his mother Dharmo Devi, which clearly goes on to show that respondent No. 6 is the son of Nandu and not the son of Tulsi Ram.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and