Revenue Authorities Can Decide Cases On Merits While Exercising Transfer Powers U/S 10 Of Land Revenue Act: J&K High Court
Reiterating the wide discretionary powers conferred upon senior revenue authorities under Section 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that officers such as the Collector, Divisional Commissioner, and Financial Commissioner are legally empowered to decide matters on merits while exercising their authority to withdraw and transfer cases pending before subordinate revenue officers.
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi made this observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by Bhagu Ram and others, challenging a chain of revenue orders culminating in the partition of agricultural land in District Udhampur.
The dispute revolved around 24 kanals of land that had allegedly come to the petitioners’ share by way of a private family partition conducted long ago between the fathers of the petitioners and the private respondents (respondents 4 to 8). No objection or dispute was raised during the lifetime of either predecessor. However, after the land appreciated in value due to its proximity to Dhar Road, the respondents began asserting fresh claims, seeking a repartition of the land.
In 2013, the petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Udhampur, who passed an interim order directing both parties to maintain possession. Meanwhile, respondents 4 to 8 moved an application before the Tehsildar Majalta for correction of Girdawari entries. Upon inquiry, the Naib Tehsildar Deot opined that the respondents possessed less land than the petitioners and advised that partition not correction was the appropriate remedy.
Disregarding these recommendations, the Tehsildar proceeded to order partition without giving the petitioners an opportunity to file a written response. In response, the petitioners filed an application under Section 10 of the Land Revenue Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, seeking transfer of the proceedings from the Tehsildar Majalta to a neutral revenue officer who dismissed the transfer application but simultaneously ruled on the merits, directing deletion of Girdawari entries in the petitioners’ favour.
The gravamen of the petitioners’ argument was that the Deputy Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding the substantive issues of possession and partition instead of merely adjudicating on the question of transfer under Section 10.
Court’s Observations:
Justice Kazmi began by examining Section 10 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, which reads,
“The Financial Commissioner or a Divisional Commissioner or a Collector may withdraw any case pending before any Revenue Officer under his control and either dispose of it himself, or by written order refer it for disposal to any other Revenue Officer under his control.”
The Court interpreted this provision broadly, holding that it not only empowers the authority to transfer cases but also to dispose of them on merits, provided the officer has jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court clarified,
“Section 10 of the Act is required to be understood to mean that the Financial Commissioner or the Divisional Commissioner may withdraw any case pending before any revenue officer under his control and transfer it for disposal to any other revenue officer under his control having jurisdiction to hear such case. Similarly, the Collector too can withdraw any case… and either dispose of the matter himself or refer it for disposal…”
The petitioners’ contention that the Deputy Commissioner had acted beyond his authority was squarely rejected. The Court held that since the petitioners themselves had invoked Section 10 and the proceedings were conducted under its mandate, they could not later claim lack of jurisdiction.
It was also noted that the petitioners were party to multiple proceedings including revision and review but never seriously pursued their remedies. In fact, their appeal against the final partition order dated 07.11.2016 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.03.2023, undermining their claim of bona fide grievance, the court pointed out.
Concluding that the Deputy Commissioner was well within his statutory powers under Section 10 to dispose of the case on merits, the court observed that the writ petition was not maintainable, as efficacious alternative remedies were available and already availed.
Since partition had already been carried out and implemented by the Tehsildar, and the appeal against it was dismissed, nothing further survived for adjudication, the court maintained.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and all interim reliefs were vacated.
Case Title: Bhagu Ram & Ors Vs Joint Financial Commissioner Revenue Jammu and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)
