GHULAM MOHI UD DIN LONE AND ORS. vs MST. ZEBA AND ANR. (REVENUE DEPARTMENT)

Serial No. 29

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 2433/2022 CM(6161/2022)
GHULAM MOHI UD DIN LONE AND ORS …PETITIONER(S)
Through:
Mr. S.N. Ratanpuri, Advocate
V/s.
MST. ZEBA AND ANR ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through:
Mr. N.H. Shah, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Suwaiba, Advocate, and
Ms. Saima Ghulam, Advocate
CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
ORDER
03.09.2026


01. An appeal assailing mutation Nos. 210 dated 20.12.1985 and
252 dated 22.02.1991, attested under Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian
Reforms Act, (for short, “the Act”) was preferred by respondent No. 1
before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Baramulla, (for short,
“the Appellate Authority”), along with an application seeking
condonation of delay. The application seeking condonation of delay
was allowed by the Appellate Authority in terms of order dated
09.02.2019. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.08.2022, the Appellate
Authority allowed the appeal, thereby setting aside the aforesaid
mutations. and remitted the matter to the Tehsildar concerned for
further course of action in accordance with law.

02. Aggrieved of the orders dated 09.02.2019 and 10.08.2022
(supra), the petitioners, through the medium of this petition filed on
31.10.2022, have assailed the same, primarily on the ground that the
appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 was hopelessly time-barred. It is
also contended that the learned Appellate Authority has lost sight of
the fact that setting aside of the mutations would not be of any benefit

to respondent No. 1, inasmuch as it would result in vesting the land to
its original owner, who is neither related to the petitioners or
respondent No. 1.

03. Respondent No. 1 has filed the reply, stating therein that the
present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches. Besides, it is contended that the petitioners got the mutations
attested under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act (supra) in utter disregard of
the provisions of the Act. It is also urged that the mutations were
attested behind the back of respondent No. 1, and it is settled law that
the possession of one co-sharer is the possession of the other co-sharer.

04. Mr. Ratanpuri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
principally contended that the appeal preferred by Respondent No. 1
against the mutations was hopelessly barred by limitation. He further
adverted to the order dated 10.08.2022 to demonstrate that Respondent
No. 1 had full knowledge of the impugned mutations.
05. Per contra , Mr. N. H. Shah, learned Senior Counsel, appearing
for the respondent No. 1, has submitted that the petitioners, having
acquiesced in the order dated 09.02.2019 whereby the delay in filing the
appeal against the aforementioned mutations was condoned, submitted
to the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority to adjudicate the appeal
on merits. The petitioners took a calculated risk of participating in the
proceedings with the expectation of a favorable outcome; only upon the
eventual allowance of the appeal on merits by the Appellate Authority
have they chosen to assail the underlying order dated 09.02.2019. Senior
Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1, has further submitted that the
order dated 09.02.2019 was immune from challenge, the petitioners
having assailed it after an unexplainable delay of over three years and
eight months. He further urged that Respondent No. 1, being a co-
sharer in the subject land, could not have been excluded from the
attestations of mutations sanctioned under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act
(supra). It was also submitted that a perusal of the impugned order
dated 10.08.2022 manifestly demonstrates that the said mutations were
secured by the petitioners through manipulation.
06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

07. The principal ground of the petitioners is that the appeal
preferred by respondent No. 1 was hopelessly time-barred, as such, this
Court would first determine the said contention of the petitioner.

08. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 is a co-sharer. It is not the case
of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 was present at the time of
attestation of the mutation (supra). Further, the Appellate Authority in
terms of the impugned order dated 09.02.2019, while condoning the
delay, has categorically observed that the mutations impugned were
attested at the back of respondent No. 1.

09. Be that as it may, the petitioners never chose to assail the
order dated 09.02.2019 for a period of more than three years and eight
months, and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.
1 is right in his submission that the petitioners, in effect, acquiesced in
the order dated 09.02.2019 by taking a calculated chance and permitting
the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits, harboring the
expectation that the appeal would be decided in their favor and
ultimately dismissed.

10. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate due diligence in
seeking timely recourse against the order dated 09.02.2019. This Court
is, therefore, of the considered view that the challenge to the said order
is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches. Having acquiesced in the
order dated 09.02.2019 for over three years and eight months and
permitted the Appellate Authority to proceed to final adjudication on
merits, the petitioners are precluded from assailing the order dated
09.02.2019 through the present writ petition. Consequently, this
submission on behalf of the petitioners stands rejected.

11. Next, it was contended that impugned order dated 10.08.2022
clearly reflects that the respondent No.1 was having knowledge of the
mutation. The Appellate Authority has observed that the petitioners
before the Appellate Authority have relied upon an affidavit and an
agreement, pursuant to which an inquiry was conducted, and it was
found that the petitioners had obtained the land in question from
respondent No. 1.

12. While the petitioners claim to have entered into possession
pursuant to an agreement with Respondent No. 1, such possession
could not, under any circumstances, form the basis for attestation of
mutations under the Act. The Appellate Authority rightly concluded
that upholding the mutations in question would amount to placing a
seal of approval on the gross irregularities committed by the field
revenue functionaries under the garb of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act.
The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are, therefore,
unexceptionable.

13. Even otherwise, the Appellate Authority has exercised its
discretion for cogent and discernible reasons. While exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot act
as an appellate or revisional authority to determine the validity of an
order passed by a statutory authority. In exercise of its writ jurisdiction,
this Court is required to examine only whether the procedure
established by law has been followed or whether the order impugned
suffers from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting
interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

14. Having perused the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the
Appellate Authority, this Court does not find any reason/ground
warranting interference. The present petition, being devoid of merit, is,
accordingly, dismissed.
15. The Tehsildar concerned shall proceed in accordance with
law.

( RAJNESH OSWAL )
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
03.09.2026
Junaid