Revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass pending litigation or pass orders affecting third-party rights without notice.

The appellants (residents of village Silmoon and Surchey) filed a revision petition under Section 15 of the J&K Land Revenue Act before the Settlement Commissioner, alleging that 11,000 Kanals of State land (Musber Thang and Thunder Thang) were at risk of encroachment.

The Settlement Commissioner, relying on a Tehsildar's report, ordered protection of the land and directed development projects on February 14, 2017.

This order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) on November 28, 2017.

The contesting respondents (residents of village Choolichan) challenged these orders via a writ petition (OWP No. 242/2018), arguing that 1,500 Kanals of the said land had already been mutated in their favor and were subject to separate pending litigation (OWP No. 597/2012).

The Writ Court set aside the Financial Commissioner’s order and remanded the case for a fresh hearing, citing lack of notice to affected parties and concealment of material facts by the appellants.

The appellants challenged this remand in the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).

1. Whether the Settlement Commissioner and Financial Commissioner (Revenue) validly exercised jurisdiction under Section 15 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996, in the absence of a pending or disposed of case by a subordinate officer.

2. Whether the orders passed by the revenue authorities were vitiated by the failure to provide notice to affected parties and the concealment of pending litigation regarding a portion of the subject land.

Section 15 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996, which empowers the Financial Commissioner or Divisional Commissioner to call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any officer under their control.

Fundamental principle of Audi Alteram Partem (right to be heard), establishing that administrative or quasi-judicial orders affecting the proprietary interests of parties (such as those holding mutations) cannot be passed without notice to such affected persons.

The Court observed that while the protection of State land is a laudable objective, the appellants acted in bad faith by "masquerading" as public-spirited persons to obtain orders that would adversely impact the contesting respondents' 1,500 Kanals of land, which is currently under litigation.

The Court found that the appellants failed to disclose the existence of disputed mutations and pending writ petitions (OWP No. 597/2012 and OWP No. 1711/2014) to the Settlement Commissioner.

The Court noted a jurisdictional error: Section 15 of the Act requires an existing "case" (pending or disposed of) for a revision to be entertained; since no such proceedings existed before subordinate officers regarding the 11,000 Kanals, the Settlement Commissioner could not have invoked revisional jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Writ Court's decision to set aside the Financial Commissioner's order, concluding that the initial orders were obtained through the suppression of material facts and lacked the requisite jurisdictional foundation under the Land Revenue Act.