Muneer Ahmad Akhoon vs State And Others

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 9th April, 2012 and 31.12.2014, passed by the Settlement Commissioner, J&K, and the

Financial Commissioner, J&K, Srinagar, respectively, by virtue of which Settlement Commissioner, J&K, had, while allowing the revision petition of

the Zamindaran Murad Bagh Drass, recommended that the impugned mutation be set-aside and the file be submitted to the Financial Commissioner

(Revenue) under section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act for appropriate orders and in consequence whereof the Financial Commissioner (Revenue)

also accepted the reference and upheld the order of the Settlement Commissioner holding that the impugned mutation no. 219 dated 04.09.2000 of

estate Muradbagh is bad in law, therefore, set-aside the same.

The challenge to the above orders is made inter alia on the grounds that a land comprising one kanal & 1 marla falling under survey no. 518 got

mutated in the name of petitioner’s father namely Akhoon Aman Ullah S/o Mohammad Qasim R/o Muradbagh Tehsil & District Kargil on

04.09.2000 which was challenged by the respondent no. 6 in a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, J&K, who, in terms of order

dated 09.04.2012, recommended setting aside of the mutation on the ground that the land in question being State land cannot be donated by any

individual in anybody’s favour. The said recommendation came to be accepted by the Financial Commissioner and vide order dated 31.12.2014 the

mutation was ordered to be set-aside. The petitioner contends that revision was moved by the incompetent person who is neither the Sarpanch of the

Village nor was authorized to go in revision against mutation dated 04.09.2000; the private respondent ought to have moved an appeal against the

mutation if he was aggrieved before the court of Collector or Sub Divisional Magistrate of the Area within 60 days duration which fact has not been

considered by the revenue courts, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be set-aside; that the revenue courts did not consider the fact that the

land in question is in the occupation of the concerned family since 1901 and as per the Electoral Roll of 1951 the age of grand-father of the petitioner

is recorded as 72 years and petitioner’s father as 22 years; that the revision was moved against a dead person, therefore, was not maintainable.

Etcetera.

Reply has been filed by the respondent no. 6, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner has no legal right over the disputed State land which has illegally

been encroached upon by the petitioner; that the petitioner is an encroacher and he is barred under law to seek benefit under Roshni Act; the petition

suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties as the two daughters of the late Amanullah, father of the petitioner, have not challenged the impugned

orders; that the petitioner is changing stance as he was on contesting revision and reference on different lines than those adopted in this petition; that

the land in question was never brought under Nautor; that the petitioner, his father or grand-father have never been the residents of Drass since 1901;

that the orders impugned are legal and within the parameters of law, therefore, do not need any interference.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made. The revenue courts, while dealing with the revision petition and the

reference have applied the law in its true spirit, and the legal position on the subject is appreciated quite aptly.

It appears from the material available on the file, that the land in question is a State land and has been mutated wrongly in favour of the father of the

petitioner on the basis of donation made in his favour in lieu of religious prayers offered by him as “Imam†of the village. The Settlement

Commissioner, J&K, was right in holding that the State land (Behrune line of forests) cannot be donated in such a way to any person who is not even

the resident of the said village.

The petitioner has absolutely no locus to claim the land in question and challenge the orders of the revenue courts before this Court as he has failed to

show his right or title over the land in question. In such circumstances, the petitioner appears to be a trespasser and nothing else.

Scope of challenge to the impugned order being limited, therefore, the questions raised qua dispute cannot be gone into.

In view of above, I do not see any illegality having been committed by either of the Revenue Courts, therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, along

with connected CM(s), being without any merit, the impugned orders are upheld. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.