and that there is a big chunk of State land measuring approximately 11000 kanals. Taking into consideration the report submitted by the field revenue agencies, the Settlement Commissioner, came to the conclusion that a big chunk of State land needs to be protected against encroachment. Consequently, vide order dated 14th of February 2017, the Settlement Commissioner disposed of the revision petition with a direction to the subordinate revenue agencies to ensure that no illegal encroachment or change of title of land takes place in respect of the subject land. A further direction was issued by the Settlement Commissioner to the District Administration and other authorities for development of the State land in a manner that would have a positive impact upon the villagers in particular and the whole State in general. This order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 14th of February 2017 was called in question by the contesting respondents herein before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Srinagar, in a revision petition. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) concurred with the view taken by the Settlement Commissioner that the State land, deserved to be protected. The judgement of the Settlement Commissioner impugned was thus upheld and the revision petition filed by the contesting respondents was dismissed vide order dated 28th of November 2017. 6. The order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) dated 28th of November 2017 was called in question by the contesting respondents before this court in OWP No. 242/2018. Before the Writ Court, the contesting respondents contended that the big chunk of land, which measures approximately 11,000 Kanals, also includes a land measuring 1500 Kanals, which has been mutated by the competent revenue authority in favour of the contesting respondents, and that the orders were obtained by the appellants herein from the Settlement Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) without arranging them as party-respondents and by suppressing the material fact of pendency of litigation in respect of 1500 Kanals of land. The Writ Court having considered the rival contentions, came to the conclusion that the order of the Settlement Commissioner was without any notice to the affected persons and also that the appellants herein had concealed the material facts about the pendency of litigation inter se the parties including WP (C) No. 1711/2014.
