Pendency of unrelated litigation does not bar consideration of inheritance mutation.

Petitioner No. 1 is the son of late Vijay Chand Katoch, while petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of late Kiran Devi; both Vijay Chand Katoch and Kiran Devi were children of late Nischint Chand Katoch. The petitioners sought attestation of an inheritance mutation in their favour before the Assistant Collector 1st Class (Tehsildar), Marh, as successors-in-interest of Nischint Chand Katoch. The application was declined by order dated 22 August 2022 on the ground that the matter was sub judice before various courts, particularly the First Additional District Judge, Jammu.

The petitioners contended that the pending civil proceedings concerned an allegedly fraudulent decree obtained by Bansi Lal and others and did not relate to the petitioners’ entitlement to inheritance mutation. They further asserted that mutation had already been attested in favour of Nasib Chand Katoch, another son of Nischint Chand Katoch, while their claim remained undecided.

The respondents relied upon objections raised by residents of Lalyal Camp, who claimed that the land at Beli Azmat had been allotted to them in 1976 and that they were in possession. They also stated that the inheritance mutation was disputed and referred to Standing Order No. 23-A, Rule 29(1), under which a disputed mutation could not be attested by the Assistant Collector 2nd Class.

Pursuant to the High Court’s direction, the respondents identified several pending and concluded proceedings. The Court found that the proceedings earlier relied upon by the respondents had either been decided or did not concern the issue of inheritance mutation. At the time of decision, only an appeal against Mutation No. 72 before the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, and a civil suit before the First Additional District Judge, Jammu, remained pending.

Whether the pendency of the civil suit and other proceedings justified the refusal to consider the petitioners’ application for attestation of inheritance mutation on the ground that the matter was sub judice?

Whether the competent revenue authority was required to consider and decide the petitioners’ application for inheritance mutation in accordance with law notwithstanding the pending civil suit and appeal concerning the land?

The Court applied the principle that a revenue authority cannot decline to exercise jurisdiction merely by referring generally to pending litigation unless the pending proceedings directly concern the issue requiring determination.

It also considered Standing Order No. 23-A, Rule 29(1), under which a disputed mutation cannot be attested by an Assistant Collector 2nd Class and must be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable revenue procedure.

The pendency of civil or revenue proceedings does not, by itself, bar consideration of a mutation application where the precise issue of inheritance is not directly sub judice; any mutation must nevertheless be decided strictly in accordance with law and without adjudicating title beyond the revenue authority’s jurisdiction.

The Court examined the subject matter of the civil suit before the First Additional District Judge, Jammu, and found that it concerned a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 20 December 2010, with the parties directed to maintain status quo; it did not concern the petitioners’ claim to inheritance mutation.

The Court further noted that the other proceedings cited by the respondents had been decided, and that no lis relating specifically to the petitioners’ inheritance entitlement remained pending before any court or competent authority.

Accordingly, the respondents’ reliance on the general assertion that the matter was sub judice was held insufficient to justify refusal to process the application.

The existence of objections regarding possession and allotment of the land could require examination under the applicable revenue rules, but could not justify a blanket refusal to decide the petitioners’ application.

The petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the petitioners’ application for attestation of inheritance mutation as expeditiously as possible and strictly in accordance with law.

The pending civil suit before the First Additional District Judge, Jammu, and the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, were directed not to obstruct consideration and decision of the application.