A five-decade delay cannot be condoned without a cogent explanation accounting for the inaction.

Mutation No. 488, attested on 7 December 1970, recorded the estate of the petitioner’s father in favour of certain heirs, excluding the petitioner.

She claimed that she was a minor when the mutation was attested, had lived outside the Valley, and first learned of it in 2022. In 2023, she challenged the mutation and sought condonation of delay; the Sub-Divisional Magistrate condoned the delay, and the Additional Commissioner upheld that decision.

On revision, the Financial Commissioner set aside those orders and upheld the mutation. The petitioner then sought judicial review under Article 226.

Whether the Financial Commissioner was justified in setting aside the orders condoning the delay of more than five decades in challenging Mutation No. 488.

Whether the Financial Commissioner’s decision disclosed a ground for interference under Article 226.

Condonation of delay is discretionary and depends on the sufficiency and acceptability of the explanation; courts must distinguish a genuine explanation from a mere excuse, and the length of delay, the party’s conduct, intervening rights, and likely prejudice are relevant considerations (*Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India*, para. 29, quoted at para. 46).

Limitation must be applied as prescribed and cannot be extended merely on equitable grounds or hardship (*Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer*, discussed at paras. 49–50).

A party seeking condonation must provide a satisfactory explanation for the relevant period of delay; limitation also serves finality and certainty in legal proceedings.

Under Article 226, the High Court may decline interference where the revisional authority has acted within its jurisdiction and committed no manifest error of law.

The Court found that the petitioner’s minority at the time of attestation and residence outside the Valley did not explain her inaction for the entire period between 1970 and the 2023 challenge.

Even if minority were established, it did not account for the decades after she attained majority; nor was there a cogent explanation for the periods before 1989 and after conditions in the Valley improved.

The Financial Commissioner had considered the asserted lack of knowledge, residence, prevailing conditions, and the passage of time, and also noted a 2003 transaction that could have created third-party interests.

Applying the principles on sufficient cause and limitation, the Court concluded that the revisional decision was reasoned and disclosed no jurisdictional or manifest legal error warranting writ intervention.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the Financial Commissioner’s order dated 29 August 2025, including its decision to uphold Mutation No. 488, was affirmed.