Ghulam Hassan Bhat and Others vs Ali Mohammad and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—I appears that respondent No. 9 came to be arrayed as respondent, not in the capacity of State party, but in his

capacity as receiver. The State has not been arrayed a party to the writ petition and, as such, same is not maintainable. Writ petition cannot lie

against private persons and on this ground alone, writ petition merits dismissal.

It appears that the petitioner has questioned order dated 31-12-1998 passed by Additional District Judge read with order dated 15-5-2000

passed by this Court in a revision petition. The order has attained finality. Writ petitions cannot challenge orders passed by the civil court and

upheld by the revisional court. I am fortified in my view by a judgment of the apex court reported as Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Vs.

Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, .

Petitioners have also challenged mutation orders No. 546 and 568 passed under Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act respectively.

Neither the petitioners nor the respondents have assailed these mutation orders by way of remedy provided under the Agrarian Reforms Act and

the Rules framed thereunder, though the petitioners had in their armoury two remedies i.e. appeal as well as revision provisions, but both the

remedies have not been availed and instead extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction has been invoked by the petitioners. It is also apt to mention here that

the learned District Judge has also discussed the mutation orders passed under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act in the judgment dated 31-12-1998

came to be upheld by this Court in a revision petition. Why the appellant has not invoked appellate jurisdiction within the time prescribed and why

he has not challenged that before the revisional court is also not known, but the fact of the matter is that after lapse of more than 3 years from the

date of passing of the judgment dated 31-12-1998, the petitioners have chosen to file the writ petition in hand. Thus the writ petition is not

maintainable on this count also.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition is totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.