A quasi-judicial authority commits a jurisdictional error by deciding a case on its merits without first adjudicating upon the fundamental issue of limitation and by adjudicating against parties who were not impleaded despite being directly affected by the outcome.

JUDGMENT

1. Through the medium of the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called into question the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, whereby the revision petition filed by respondent No. 2 came to be allowed, the order dated 21.05.1991 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu was set aside and Mutation No. 39 dated 10.03.1959 pertaining to Estate Channi Kamala, Tehsil Bahu, District Jammu was upheld.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The controversy in the present petition relates to land measuring 48 kanals and 03 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 73, 85 and 88 min situated at Estate Channi Kamala, Tehsil Bahu, District Jammu. The case projected by the petitioner is that the said land, after extinguishment of the rights of the erstwhile landlords under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, vested in Shera, who was an occupancy tenant. It is further pleaded that, after the demise of Shera, the property devolved upon his successors and, by way of successive mutations of inheritance, ultimately came to vest in the petitioner's father, Sain Mohd., and thereafter in the petitioner by virtue of Mutation No. 1674.

3. The dispute essentially revolves around Mutation No. 39 dated 10.03.1959, whereby ownership rights in respect of the land in question were conferred upon Abdul Rahim and Mohd. Hussain. According to the petitioner, Abdul Rahim was neither a member of the family of Shera nor otherwise entitled to claim ownership under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act. It is further alleged that Mutation No. 39 suffered from various legal and factual infirmities, including interpolation in the mutation register, chronological inconsistencies in the revenue record and its attestation in favour of Mohd. Hussain despite his alleged demise prior to the date of attestation.

4. Aggrieved of Mutation No. 39, the petitioner's father, Sain Mohd., preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. It is a matter of record that vide order dated 21.05.1991, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside Mutation No. 39. According to the petitioner, the said order was subsequently implemented by attestation of Mutation No. 596 in favour of Sain Mohd. and, upon his demise, Mutation No. 1674 came to be attested in favour of the petitioner.

5. Respondent No. 2 thereafter instituted a revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner on 16.11.2020 challenging the aforesaid order dated 21.05.1991. The case set up in the revision petition was that the persons who had acquired interest in the land through registered sale deeds executed by Abdul Rahim were necessary parties to the proceedings before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner but had not been impleaded. It was further pleaded that knowledge of the order dated 21.05.1991 was acquired only in the year 2017, when the concerned revenue authorities declined to issue revenue extracts on the basis of the said order.

6. The learned Financial Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 27.02.2023, allowed the revision petition, condoned the delay in its