Condonation of thirty-year delay in challenging mutation order without cogent reasons is a jurisdictional error.

The petitioners are heirs of late Narayan, whose land was mutated in their names on 20.10.1992 based on a registered will.

This mutation remained unchallenged for 30 years.

In 2022, Respondent Nos. 4-9 (unrelated to Narayan) obtained a separate mutation order for other parcels of Narayan's land by misrepresenting themselves as legal heirs.

Using that 2022 order as proof of heirship, the Respondents challenged the petitioners' 1992 mutation before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) after a 30-year delay.

The SDO condoned the delay without sufficient cause, set aside the 1992 mutation on 29.05.2023, and directed the Respondents' names be added.

The petitioners’ review was rejected on 04.10.2023, and the Commissioner affirmed the SDO's order on 26.12.2023.

The court applied the principle that the Law of Limitation requires a reasoned consideration of delay condonation; mechanical condonation of extraordinary delay is arbitrary and unsustainable.

It further applied the doctrine that mutation entries are fiscal in nature, intended for land revenue purposes, and do not confer or determine legal title.

The court relied on the principle that revenue authorities cannot determine the validity of a will if it is disputed; such questions must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.

Finally, the court reinforced the fundamental requirement of the principle of audi alteram partem (natural justice), requiring proper service of notice before passing adverse orders.

The court found the SDO's order patently illegal for condoning a 30-year delay in a routine manner without "cogent or convincing reasons," which unsettled long-settled rights.

The court noted that the SDO violated natural justice by failing to ensure proper service of notice to the petitioners.

Regarding the Respondents’ claim, the court reasoned that the SDO erroneously used a separate (and later set-aside) mutation entry to establish the Respondents' status as legal heirs, ignoring that mutation entries do not determine title.

Furthermore, since the 1992 mutation was based on a registered will that was unchallenged at the relevant time, the revenue authorities lacked the jurisdiction to interfere with it decades later without a civil court's declaration.

The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 29.05.2023, 04.10.2023, and 26.12.2023. The 20.10.1992 mutation order in favor of the petitioners was restored. Respondent Nos. 4-9 were granted liberty to approach a competent Civil Court to establish any claim of right, title, or interest.