Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 1: Division Bench of High Court comprising Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Rajesh Bindal has held that an appeal against the order of Divisional Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction is not maintainable before the Financial Commissioner.
Division Bench has also issued directions for avoiding generation of unnecessary litigation and forum hunting by the parties, all the authorities under different statutes, who pass the quasi-judicial order or even administrative orders against which a statutory remedy is provided under the applicable law and a period of limitation also prescribed.
They have been asked to mention on the preface of the order itself about the authority before whom the order can be challenged in appeal or by way of any other remedy and also the period of limitation for the purpose.
“As there is a widespread practice prevalent in the Union Territory amongst officers to exercise powers, which are not vested in them, it shall also be mandatory for them to specify in the order, the provisions of the relevant Statutes/Rules under which the order has been passed”, the DB said and directed that a copy of order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and UT of Ladakh for circulation to the concerned officers for compliance.
As per the case before the DB, an application was filed by the residents of village Rehmbal against appellant regarding demarcation of the land falling under Khasra No. 458 in village Mouza Rehmbal, Udhampur. An order was passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Class-Tehsildar, Udhampur on 17.06.2015 and the issue regarding demarcation and identification of the land was resolved.
This order was challenged by the appellants by filing revision petition before Divisional Commissioner, Jammu on 19.06.2015 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2016. To challenge these two orders, the writ petition was filed in the court and vide order dated 10.07.2019 the appellants were given liberty to file appeal before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner.
While challenging the order impugned, counsel for the appellants submitted that the view expressed by the Single Judge that there is remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, is erroneous. “Section 11 of the Act does not provide for any such remedy, hence the writ petition was maintainable”, the appellants added.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Class (Tehsildar), Udhampur by submitting that the appellants wanted to cause interference in the shamlat deh land on which they did not have any right.
After hearing both the sides, the DB observed, “an appeal against the order of Divisional Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction is not maintainable before the Financial Commissioner”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel