A Single Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal has held that athough the Power of Revision by Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner  is exercisable Concurrently by both authorities either upon being invoked by a party and suo moto as well. However, the Financial Commissioner in exercise of the said power of revision in case intends to revoke or modify any proceeding or order of a subordinate authority affecting any right of a party, has to afford an opportunity of hearing to such party before modifying or reversing an order.

The petitioners alleged that they were owners of land measuring 24 Kanals  purchased in the year 1964 whereupon the Mutation was attested in favour of their forefathers in the year 1968. The said mutation was challenged in Appeal accompanied by an Application for Condonation of Delay before Deputy Commissioner whereupon an interim order was passed. The said interim order was challenged by way of Revision petition before Divisional Commissioner on the ground that the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner could not have passed the interim order in the application for interim relief accompanying the appeal without first adverting to the application for condonation of delay as the appeal was time barred. The Divisional Commissioner after receiving the report from the field agencies set aside the impugned mutation while exercising suo moto revisional powers withdrew the appeal filed by the respondents before the Deputy Commissioner fundamentally on the premise that the said mutation had been attested fraudulently on the basis of a non-existent sale deed and directed restoration of the previous position in the matter as was existing prior to the attestation of the impugned mutation. The divisional Commissioner accordingly made a recommendation reference to the Financial Commissioner which was accepted. The Orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner &  FCR setting aside the mutation were thus challenged in the instant petition.

The court after hearing the parties and perusing the record observed that the moot question for consideration of this court would be as to whether the impugned orders have been passed in tune and line with the power of revision enshrined under Section 15 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996. 

While analysing the scope of Section 15 the court observed that a bare perusal of the Section 15 supra would tend to show that 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 and is exercisable by the aforesaid Revisional Authorities either upon being invoked by a party and suo moto as well. However, the Financial Commissioner in exercise of the said power of revision in case intends to revoke or modify any proceeding or order of a subordinate authority affecting any right of a party, has to afford an opportunity of hearing to such party before modifying or reversing an order.

The court while taking note of the fact that the enquiry ordered by the Divisional Commissioner and after the perusal of enquiry report revealed that the ACR had not returned any findings in respect of the existence of the sale deed in question. Thus, in view of the said report, the Divisional Commissioner respondent 3 herein could not have held that the sale deed is non-existent or that the petitioners failed to produce the said sale deed when no inquiry in this regard had been conducted by the Divisional Commissioner

The court observed that the whole exercise undertaken by the Divisional Commissioner has been undertaken in hot haste without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. And also that the FCR has acted mechanically. 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. 

The court remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration of time-barred appeal afresh. Accordingly set aside the impugned orders of quashing the mutation.