01. This Court came to dispose of writ petition WP(C) No. 1166/2025, which was also preferred by the present petitioner, in terms of an order dated 09.05.2025 which resulted in filing of an appeal by the petitioner before the appellate authority of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, getting adjudicated upon on file No. 1494/FC-AP in terms of final order dated 26.09.2025 which has again rendered the petitioner aggrieved in the manner in which the appellate jurisdiction has come to be exercised by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue of J&K that while on the one hand accepting the appeal of the petitioner against the impugned order but then

simultaneously, exercising revisional jurisdiction though, without mentioning so by setting aside mutations No. 880 and 881 of estate Shiendara Tehsil Haveli and consequently restoring revenue entries as obtaining prior to the attestation of the two mutations which otherwise were obtaining in favour of the petitioner.

02. The present case involves the application of LB-6/C and order No. S-432 of 1966 in the context of which the petitioner who is said to have earned the attestation of two mutations which got set aside and accordingly, the entries pre-existing the attestation of mutations came to be restored by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K.

03. Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate arguing for the petitioner submits that if the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K was inclined to exercise suo-moto revisional jurisdiction then the requirement of law as settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is that the petitioner ought to have been notified before hand by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K that he was inclined to exercise suo-moto jurisdiction and then affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner about the proposed line of reasoning on

which the suo-moto revisional power was being intended to be exercised by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K.

04. There is no doubt to the fact that with the same stroke of pen while accepting the appeal of the petitioner against the order impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Poonch in setting aside the two mutations attested in favour of the petitioner, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K suo-moto switched over to the revisional jurisdiction and set aside the said two mutations and ordered restoration of the revenue entries as obtaining prior to the date of attestation of two mutations catching the petitioner unaware of the mindset of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K in the context of exercising of revisional jurisdiction.

05. Prima-facie case made out.

06. Issue notice to the respondent No. 2 only, at the first instance, in the main petition and in the CM No. 6993/2025 as well. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Senior AAG accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Reply be filed.

07. List on 05.12.2025.

08. Send for the record of file No. 1494/FC-AP titled “Mohd. Sadiq Vs. UT of J&K & Ors.” from the court of Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K.

09. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, shall remain stayed and status-quo be maintained with respect to the land forming subject matter of the two mutations above referred.

10. This order is, however, subject to the objections from the other side.