Maqsooda and others vs State and others

By this petition, petitioners seek writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed by respondent No. l (Financial Commissioner) in revision

petition No: 49 of 1990 titled Hafiza Banoo and others versus Mohammad and others on 7.6.1994 and a writ of mandamus commanding that

mutation No. 262 affected by learned Tehsildar Ganderbal dated 6.8.1984 in respect of land measuring 6 kanals and one marla situate at

Choudhary Bagh, Srinagar covered under Khasra No: 212 (new) and 210 (old) be declared as null and void and declaring that the mutation

affected in the year 1982 in favour of the petitioner being in accordance with law, shall continue.

The facts in brief which have given rise to the present petition are that one Subhan Mir, father of petitioners, had by virtue of a sale deed

executed on 26.8.1962 and registered on 22.3.1963 had sold a piece of land measuring six kanals and one marla covered under survey 210 (Old)

situated at Choudhary bagh tehsil Ganderbal, which as per averments made in the sale deed was in the cultivating possession of Abdullah Baba

S/O Ahmad Baba R/O Badragund, Ganderbal, who happens to be the father of respondents 2 to 8 in the petition. The said land was within the

notification of Consolidation of Holdings issued on 9.6.1962 vide SRO 219, as such, as per averments of the petitioners, the land could not have

been transferred during the pendency of the Consolidation proceedings, without permission in this behalf, which is alleged to have been obtained

by the Seller Subhan Mir on 1071962 from Additional Settlement Officer, granting him permission for the said sale in question,

While perusing the records, it transpires that the land under survey No. 212 (new) which was previously under survey No: 210 (old) is

consisting of 21 kanals and 10 marlas and is shown in the ownership column of Girdawari as under:

Abdullah Wa Mohd Wa Habib pisran Ahmad ba hisa barabar teen hisa wa subhan was Ahmad Mir yak hisa Sakinan Deh.

In the Cultivation column of Girdawari right up from 1968, it is shown as under:

Abdullah 4.K. 9.M. Wa Mohd 5.K. Wa Habib6.K. WaSubhan6.K. l.M.hisdaran.

It is this six kanals and one marlas of land which was sold by the owner Subhan Mir, father of the petitioners by virtue of the sale deed referred

to hereinabove after obtaining proper permission during consolidation proceedings and this land is shown to be in possession of respondents father

Abdullah Baba as per entries of 1976, Rabi wherein entries read:

Mohd hisadar 5.K. 8.M. Subhan hisadar bakashat Abdullah baqi badastur.

So even the revenue entries do show that the land of the Share of Subhan Mir, cosharer and father of the petitioners herein was in the cultivating

possession of Abdullah Baba father of the respondents and it is this land which has been purchased by him vide the sale deed referred to

hereinabove.

The mutations which were affected on the basis of the sale deed etc. became bone of contention between the parties and this mutation was

agitated/challanged before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir who vide his order dated 411990 after giving detailed reasons rejected the claim

of the petitioners and against the said order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, a revision petition was preferred before the Financial

Commissioner who after considering the rival arguments of parties and appreciating their contentions had upheld the order passed by Divisional

Commissioner, Kashmir, virtually passed by Tehsildar in mutation No: 262 regarding six kanals and one marlas of land covered under survey No:

212 (new) and 210 (old).

The points projected before this court in this writ petition are only repetitions of all the arguments which have been advanced and considered by

different Revenue courts. Some finality is to be attached to the findings arrived at by different functionaries under the Land Revenue Act and [SIC]

in case no finality is attached, then there will be no end to the litigation. The father of the petitioners have sold the land by a valid sale deed under

valid permission. The said land was in his cultivating possession as is evident by the very sale deed. Mere fact that a recitation has been made in the

sale deed that the vendor shall obtain a permission as because the land is under consolidation process, from the authorities, does not invalidate the

sale deed. It is infant prior to the execution and registration of the sale deed that the permission from the Settlement Officer on 1071962 has been

obtained as is being reiterated in the petition and the orders passed by various functionaries of the Revenue Department.

The please raised by the petitioners are aimed at to just prolong and protract the litigation without giving any rest to the findings arrived at and

without giving any rest to the findings arrived at and without reconciling to the facts which have given rise to the present litigation, is only a figment

of imagination and does not make any special case to be considered and even issuing a notice asking the other side to put in their claim regarding

the contentions raised by the petitioners. In fact the land has duly been sold by the ancestor of the petitioners and had also parted from the said

land in pursuance of the sale deeds. The mutation of the other properties left out by Subhan Mir have been duly affected in the name of the

petitioners and same is not disputed. Neither the respondents have any claim regarding that property. The respondents at the most can have claim

only regarding the property which their father had purchased by way of a sale deed in question and it is admittedly shown in the sale deed that the

land in question is in their cultivating possession, as referred to hereinabove.

Even if the petitioners still feel that they have any cause to plead, some facts to Marshall but this court is not the court of fact. The reply to the

petitioners lies somewhere else, in case they are advised legally. So the question formulated by the petitioners in the petition for determination are

nothing but figment of imagination.

For the foregoing reasons, no good ground is made out for admission of the petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine, along with the

connected CMPs.