J&K Land Revenue Act | Special Remedy U/S 121 Doesn't Extinguish Financial Commissioner's Power To Correct Mutation Errors Under Section 15: High Court

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani further expounded,

“Power of the Financial Commissioner under section 15 supra is held to be of wide magnitude not barred by the provisions of section 121 of the Act of 1996 supra and the Financial Commissioner would retain the said revisional power to determine the legality of the orders passed by the subordinate officers under his jurisdiction in order to correct patent errors”.

The case involved a land dispute between three brothers Tirath Singh (original petitioner), Kulvant Singh, and Nirmal Singh (respondents 5 & 6). The land in question was vested jointly in their favor in terms of a mutation under Section 8 of the Act of 1976. However, a subsequent mutation under Section 121 of the Act excluded Kulvant Singh and Nirmal Singh, attributing ownership solely to Tirath Singh.

Proceedings Before Divisional Commissioner & Financial Commissioner:

Kulvant and Nirmal challenged this mutation through a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, claiming they were unaware of it and that it violated natural justice principles. The Divisional Commissioner agreed and recommended setting aside the mutation. However, the Financial Commissioner, upon reference, rejected the recommendation on technical grounds of failure to serve notice on Tirath Singh in the revision petition.

Despite the initial technical rejection, the parties jointly requested the Financial Commissioner to decide the matter on its merits. The Financial Commissioner, exercising his revisional power under Section 15, ultimately allowed the petition and declared the mutation illegal. This decision was challenged by Tirath Singh in the High Court.

Tirath argued that Section 121 provided a standalone remedy, and the Financial Commissioner's revisional power under Section 15 was excluded. He further claimed the special appeal provision under Section 121 should have been the sole recourse.

High Court's Observations :

Upon considering the rival contentions Justice Wani clarified that the existence of a special remedy under Section 121 doesn't extinguish the general revisional power under Section 15.

Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd. vs. Uma Shankar Sharan, the court noted that a special remedy does not bar a general remedy unless explicitly stated and thus an affected party can choose either remedy, but not both.

Elaborating further on the matter the bench emphasised that Section 15 empowers the Financial Commissioner to rectify legal errors committed by subordinate officers, ensuring proper land record management. The Court futher observed that while the Divisional Commissioner's jurisdiction is restricted during settlement operations, the Financial Commissioner's revisional power remains intact.

“..a bare perusal of the provisions of section 8 and 10 of the Act of 1996 supra read with section 15 supra envisaging revisional powers of the Financial Commissioner manifestly demonstrates that same do not admit of any exception under any circumstances as all the revenue officers named in the Act of 1996 are subject to overall control and superintendence of the Financial Commissioner in addition to his revisional Jurisdiction”, the court underscored.

Spotlighting the language used in Section 121 of the Act Justice Wani explained that Section 121 only binds parties involved in the dispute, not the authorities themselves. This means the appeal option under Section 121 is an extra layer of protection for aggrieved parties which exists alongside the general revision power of the Financial Commissioner under Section 15 and ensures subordinate revenue officers follow the law when making decisions, the bench maintained.

Deliberating on the other aspect of the matter the court also pointed out that Tirath Singh could not have used Section 121 to challenge the previous mutation which vested ownership in all three brothers, as the question of title was already decided under the Act of 1976.

The Court ultimately dismissed the petitions because the subsequent mutation was attested illegally and without notice to Kulvant Singh and Nirmal Singh. The Court observed that reviving this illegal mutation would not be appropriate through its equitable jurisdiction.

Case Title: Updesh Kour Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 136

Mr. G. A. Lone, Advocate with Mr. Mujeeb Andrabi, Advocate represented the petitioners, Mr. T. H. Khawaja, Advocate appeared for the respondents

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment