LPAOW/119/2017 of RAJAN SAMOTRA AND ORS. Vs FIN.COMM.REVENUE AND ORS. on 29 December 2017

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 04.10.2017 in OWP No.1032/2008. The appellants herein had filed the said writ petition seeking the setting aside of the order dated 28.04.1980 passed by the Tehsildar,Udhampur and the order dated 23.09.2008 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu. A prayer was also made for a direction to the revenue authority to attest the mutation of the land in favour of the petitioners, which was recorded under mutation No.1268 of village Barola, Tehsil Udhampur.

2. The facts giving rise to the controversy have been accurately set out in the order dated 23.09.2008 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue). Consequently, the same are reproduced here under:

“For the better understanding of the case it becomes necessary to give the brief history of the case which is that one Dina Nath of village Badola Tehsil Udhampur executed a registered adoption deed on 31-05-1971 taking the petitioner as his adopted son. This adoption deed was challenged by the respondents on 05.07.1971 taking the petitioner as his adopted son. This adoption deed was challenged by the respondents 05.07.1971 before a civil court in a declaratory suit which was dismissed in default on 14.1.74.

After the death of Dina Nath, TehsildarUdhampur passed an order dated 28.04.1980 on the mutation No. 1268 devolving the landed property on the adopted son, the petitioner. This order on mutation No. 1268 of village Badola Tehsil Udhampur was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner Udhampur in an appeal filed by the respondents on 30.4.81 and set aside the order on the mutation No. 1268 on the ground that the adoption deed was not valid as it did not fulfill the requirements of Hindu Adoption Act.

The order of Deputy Commissioner Udhampur dated 30-4-1981 was challenged in a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner Jammu who accepted that revision and made a reference to the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 30.04.1981. The Divisional Commissioner, Jammu while making the reference has held that the revenue courts cannot adjudicate on the validity of the adoption deed being within the jurisdiction of the civil court. The case was transferred by the Financial Commissioner to Joint Financial Commissioner who rejected the reference on 20.04.1993 stating that the adoption deed was not covered under the Hindu adoption Act and upheld the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 30.4.81.

This order of Joint Financial Commissioner dated 20.04.1993 was challenged in a writ petition No. OWP/273/95 by the petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the order of Joint Financial Commissioner dated 20.4.1993 and remanded the matter to Joint Financial Commissioner vide order dated 12.04.2002.

The petitioner filed an application before this court on 25.01.2005 with the prayer for hearing the matter as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court.

The case came up for hearing on 1.4.2008. Parties filed the written arguments. I have gone through these written arguments. The counsel for the petitioner has repeated the history of the case and has put emphasis on the plea that the petitioner is an adopted son of Dina Nath. The counsel for the respondents has discussed the validity of the adoption deed. He has submitted documents in support of his contention.

As per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court this court was to see whether any restoration application was filed for restoration of the declaratory suit which has been dismissed in default by the Civil Court on 14.01.1974. The respondents have not made any mention in their written arguments that restoration application was filed before the Civil Court. Therefore, it can be summarized that no subsequent orders have been issued by the Civil Court after 14.01.1974. As such the Order dated 14.01.1974 of the Civil Court has attained finality.

I am, therefore, left with no option except to accept the reference made by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu as he has correctly held that revenue courts cannot adjudicate on the validity of the adoption deed. The reference is, therefore, accepted and the order of Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur dated 30.04.1981 is set aside and the order passed on mutation No. 1268 dated 28.04.1980 of village Badola Tehsil Udhampur upheld.

Let the file go to records after due completion.”

3. The learned Single Judge after examining the case also observed that the dispute with regard to the validity of adoption was not a dispute which could be resolved in a revenue court. Such a dispute was one, which was within the exclusive domain of acivil court. He further observed that the registered adoption deed had in fact been challenged by the appellants herein by way of a civil suit filed before a civil court. That suit was dismissed in default on 14.01.1974 and no subsequent order restoring the suit was available on record.

4. Consequently, the order dated 14.01.1974 had attained finality. The result thereof is that challenge to the adoption deed by way of a civil suit ended on 14.01.1974. That was the appropriate court which could have determined the dispute with regard to the validity of the adoption based on the said document. The revenue court, as rightly held by the Financial Commissioner and affirmed by the learned Single Judge, did not have the requisite authority to determine the issue with regard to the validity of the adoption.

5. We agree with the learned Single Judge that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and consequently, the writ petition was devoid of merit. As a result, the present appeal is dismissed.

Jammu 29.12.2017 PawanAngotra

(Sanjeev Kumar) (BadarDurrez Ahmed) Judge Chief Justice