J&K Land Revenue Act | Divisional & Financial Commissioners Hold Concurrent Revision Powers U/S 15 Provided Fair Hearing Is Granted To Parties: HC

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

"The power is exercisable concurrently both by the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner at any time in regard to any matter which is either pending before a subordinate Revenue Officer or has been disposed of by any Revenue Officer under their control... However, the Financial Commissioner, in exercising the power of revision, if intending to revoke or modify any proceeding affecting the right of a party, must afford an opportunity of hearing to such party before doing so."

The case revolved around a land dispute in Jageer Baramulla. The petitioners, Mohammad Iqbal Mir and others had inherited the land, which was initially purchased in 1964 and recorded through mutation dated April 24, 1968. Respondents 5 and 6 claimed entitlement to some portion of this land, alleging co-ownership with the petitioners' predecessors. They filed an appeal with the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla, seeking condonation of delay for their time-barred appeal. The Deputy Commissioner granted interim relief in 2014, prompting the petitioners to challenge the order before the Divisional Commissioner.

The Divisional Commissioner, exercising suo moto revision powers, annulled the mutation on the grounds of fraudulent attestation, stating that the sale deed was non-existent. The Financial Commissioner later upheld this decision.

Aggrieved of the same the petitioners approached the High Court and argued that the Divisional Commissioner's decision to annul the mutation was unjustified as no sufficient inquiry was conducted. They contended that their land was legally inherited, and the revision was completed without proper hearings, violating principles of natural justice.

Court's Observations:

Justice Wani, in his detailed order, extensively analyzed Section 15 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996, which allows both the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner to exercise revision powers. However, the Court underscored that when modifying or annulling an order that affects the rights of parties, the authority must provide a reasonable opportunity for the affected parties to be heard.

The Court took note of the fact that the Divisional Commissioner while setting aside the mutation, acted "in hot haste" and did not afford the petitioners a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Assistant Commissioner's report, which formed the basis of the annulment, failed to conclusively determine the validity of the sale deed and despite this, the Divisional Commissioner proceeded to annul the mutation without proper inquiry or evidence, the court recorded.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that both the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner decided the matter summarily without allowing the parties to lead evidence to establish their claims. Justice Wani remarked,

“Both the authorities have summarily decided the issues involved in the case, which otherwise in law could not have been decided as such, but ought to have been decided by allowing parties to lead their respective evidence for establishing their respective cases set up by them.”

Finding that the Financial Commissioner had mechanically accepted the recommendations of the Divisional Commissioner without any further inquiry, Justice Wani remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration, directing him to properly adjudicate the matter, including the issue of delay condonation, after affording both parties a fair opportunity to present their case.

“Till the matter is decided afresh as directed above, parties shall maintain status quo on spot with respect to the subject matter land”, the bench concluded.

Case Title: Mohammad Iqbal Mir and others Vs State of J&K and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 280

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment