The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reaffirmed the discretionary authority of senior revenue officers under Section 10 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, stating they can not only transfer but also decide matters on merits if they have jurisdiction.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, who dismissed a writ petition filed by Bhagu Ram and others. The petition challenged a sequence of revenue orders that ultimately led to the partition of 24 kanals of agricultural land in Udhampur district.
Read In Hindi
The petitioners claimed the land was part of a private family partition from earlier generations. Initially, there was no dispute, but as the value of the land appreciated—being near Dhar Road—the private respondents (4 to 8) began to seek repartition.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Upholds Enforceability of Unregistered Sale Agreements in Property Disputes
In 2013, the petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner Revenue, who directed status quo. However, the respondents later moved an application before the Tehsildar Majalta for correction of Girdawari entries. The Naib Tehsildar Deot advised against this, suggesting partition was the correct remedy.
"Despite the recommendation, the Tehsildar ordered a partition without giving the petitioners a chance to respond in writing."
Subsequently, the petitioners filed a transfer application under Section 10 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, alleging bias. While dismissing the application, the Deputy Commissioner simultaneously decided the merits of the case and ordered deletion of Girdawari entries in the petitioners’ favour.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Blood-stained Weapon Matching Victim's Blood Group not Enough to Convict Someone of Murder
The petitioners then approached the High Court, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner acted beyond his scope by addressing merits rather than just the transfer request.
"Section 10 of the Act empowers authorities to not only transfer but also dispose of the matter, provided they have jurisdiction," the Court clarified.
Justice Kazmi referred to Section 10, which permits officers like the Financial Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner, or Collector to withdraw and either handle a case themselves or assign it to another competent officer.
“Since the petitioners themselves had invoked Section 10, they cannot later question the jurisdiction of the officer,” the Court held.
The Court also pointed out that the petitioners participated in several proceedings including revision and review but never pursued them seriously. In fact, their appeal against the final partition order dated 07.11.2016 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.03.2023.
Read also:- Supreme Court Issues Notice on Karnataka Plea, Opposes Quashing of Arrest for Not Providing Grounds
“The petitioners failed to follow through on their available remedies, weakening their claim of genuine grievance,” the Court noted.
In conclusion, the Court held that the Deputy Commissioner acted within his powers under the statute and that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Since the partition had already been carried out and the appeal was dismissed, the Court found nothing left to adjudicate and dismissed the petition, vacating all interim reliefs.
Case Title: Bhagu Ram & Ors Vs Joint Financial Commissioner Revenue Jammu & Others
