Acquiescence and prolonged delay bar belated challenge to an order condoning appellate delay.

Respondent No. 1, a co-sharer in the subject land, filed an appeal before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Baramulla, challenging Mutation Nos. 210 dated 20.12.1985 and 252 dated 22.02.1991, which had been attested under Sections 4 and 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act.

The appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, which was allowed on 09.02.2019. Thereafter, on 10.08.2022, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, set aside the mutations, and remitted the matter to the concerned Tehsildar for further action in accordance with law.

The petitioners challenged both orders through the present writ petition filed on 31.10.2022, principally contending that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred and that setting aside the mutations would not benefit respondent No. 1.

The petitioners had not challenged the order condoning delay for more than three years and eight months and participated in the proceedings on merits.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to challenge, in the present writ petition, the order dated 09.02.2019 condoning the delay in filing the appeal, after acquiescing in that order for more than three years and eight months?

2. Whether the order dated 10.08.2022 setting aside Mutation Nos. 210 and 252 suffered from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or procedural illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

3. Whether possession allegedly acquired by the petitioners pursuant to an agreement or affidavit could validly constitute the basis for attestation of mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act?

The Court applied Sections 4 and 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, holding that mutations under the Act must be attested in accordance with the statutory scheme and cannot validly be founded merely on possession claimed under a private agreement.

It applied the doctrine of delay and laches, together with the principle of acquiescence, under which a party that knowingly permits an order to operate and participates in subsequent proceedings cannot ordinarily challenge that order after an adverse result.

The Court also reiterated the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution: the High Court does not act as an appellate or revisional authority and interferes only where the impugned decision reflects a failure to follow the procedure established by law, a jurisdictional error, or perversity.

The Court first rejected the challenge to the order condoning delay. Respondent No. 1 was admittedly a co-sharer, was not shown to have been present when the mutations were attested, and the Appellate Authority had recorded that the mutations were attested behind her back.

More importantly, the petitioners did not challenge the order dated 09.02.2019 for over three years and eight months; instead, they participated in the appeal, apparently taking the risk that it would be dismissed on merits. Their subsequent challenge, after the appeal was allowed, was therefore barred by delay, laches, and acquiescence.

On the merits, the Court held that the petitioners’ alleged possession pursuant to an agreement with respondent No. 1 could not provide a lawful basis for attestation of mutations under the Agrarian Reforms Act.

The Appellate Authority had reasonably concluded that sustaining the mutations would effectively validate serious irregularities committed by the revenue authorities. Since the Appellate Authority had exercised its discretion for cogent and discernible reasons, and the petitioners failed to establish perversity, jurisdictional error, or procedural illegality, no interference under Article 226 was warranted.

It further held that the order dated 10.08.2022 setting aside Mutation Nos. 210 and 252 disclosed no jurisdictional error, perversity, or other ground for interference under Article 226.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the concerned Tehsildar was directed to proceed in accordance with law.