Petitioner challenged a mutation order passed by the Financial Commissioner without audi alteram partem. The High Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Order impugned set aside and matter remitted to Financial Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S. No. 22 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 2270/2024
Mst. Sara …Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Bilal Ahmad Khan, Adv.
Vs.
UT of JK and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy.AG, Mr. G. N.Sofi, Dy. AG,
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
ORDER
01.09.2026
01. The petitioner had filed a revision petition against the Mutation Order No. 400 dated 3rd May, 2006 attested by Naib Tehsildar, Pattan, which came to be decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, Srinagar in terms of Order dated 10th July, 2017 and a reference was made to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J&K/Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, J&K, with a recommendation to set aside the mutation supra and further the Tehsildar be directed to attest fresh mutation after denovo enquiry in favour of all the legal heirs of deceased Habib ullha Sheikh strictly under Muslim Personal Law. The said reference was pending before the Joint Financial Commissioner, who had reserved the same for pronouncement of final orders. But due to the transfer of the said officer, the Financial Commissioner, i.e., respondent no. 1 in terms of Order dated 19th June, 2024, withdrew the said reference from the court of Joint Financial Commissioner and took up the case for hearing through virtual mode. As none was present and the matter was posted for 21st August, 2024.
On 21st August, 2024, also none was present and the matter was listed for orders on 22nd September, 2024. On 22nd September, 2024, the order impunged came to be passed and the reference made by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir was rejected.
02. Aggrieved by the order dated 22nd September, 2024, the petitioner has come with the instant petition, complaining that the order impugned has been passed without affording due opportunity of hearing.
03. None had appeared on behalf of the private respondents either before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir or Financial Commissioner. Before this Court also, they have chosen not to appear despite service. Accordingly, they are set ex-parte.
04. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
05. The record of the Financial Commissioner substantiates the contention of the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner i.e., respondent no. 1 for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.
06. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
01.09.2026
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the mutation order was passed without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Whether the impugned order is set aside and remitted for fresh disposal.
Whether the matter is disposed of ex-parte due to non-appearance of respondents.
Mst. Sara
UT of JK
Rajnish Oswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
