news details |
|
|
| High Court dismisses appeal against Divisional Commissioner’s order | | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, May 1: A Division Bench of J&K High Court while deciding an LPA on Friday held that an appeal against the order of Divisional Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction is not maintainable before the Financial Commissioner.
The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Rajesh Bindal also directed to avoid generation of unnecessary litigation and forum hunting by the parties, all the authorities under different statutes in the State, who pass the quasi-judicial order or even administrative orders against which a statutory remedy is provided.
The DB said that the applicable law and a period of limitation also prescribed shall 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 here 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 ordered that a copy of order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh for circulation to the concerned officers for compliance, the DB said.
The facts of the case, as are available on record are that an application was filed by the residents of village Rehmbal against appellant No.1 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. The issue regarding demarcation and identification of the land was resolved. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellants by filing revision petition before Divisional Commissioner, Jammu on 19.06.2015. The same was dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2016. To challenge the aforesaid two orders, the writ petition was filed in this Court on 26.02.2018. 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. It is the aforesaid order which is under challenge in the present appeal. 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. There was no error committed by the appellants in invoking the jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner. The order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Class was totally illegal as he could not have entertained the dispute on which he had adjudicated upon.
The Division Bench after hearing both the sides observed that as per the scheme of the Act, appeal is provided against the order passed by different authorities mentioned therein. An appeal lies before the Collector in case order has been passed by the Assistant Collector of either class; to the Divisional Commissioner against the order passed by the Collector and to the Financial Commissioner when the order is made by the Divisional Commissioner. However, no 2nd appeal is maintainable, in case the order impugned in the appeal is confirmed except on the grounds as mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) in Sub-Section (1) of Section 100 CPC or in case the order is modified or reversed in appeal by the Collector.
An order passed by the Divisional Commissioner in appeal is final. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
