Revenue authorities must decide delay condonation and afford a hearing before setting aside mutation entries.

The petitioner’s name was entered in the revenue records for 2 acres and 6 guntas in Survey No. 29, Itaga (K) Village, pursuant to M.R. No. 92 dated 17 July 2002.

Respondent No. 4 challenged that mutation approximately 15 years later.

The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal on 25 February 2022, and the Deputy Commissioner affirmed that decision on 3 October 2022.

The petitioner contended that he had not been afforded an adequate opportunity to present material and that the delay had not been properly condoned.

Respondent No. 4 had also brought civil proceedings concerning the family properties; a partition suit was dismissed as to the properties other than a house, and a later suit seeking a declaration was pending.

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner’s decision could stand when the appeal challenging the mutation had been filed after about 15 years and the record did not disclose a reasoned order condoning the delay.

2. Whether the matter required reconsideration after the petitioner was given an opportunity to present pleadings and documents.

The Court applied the procedural principles that a statutory authority deciding an appeal must address the application for condonation of delay and provide parties a fair opportunity to present their case; its decision should disclose adequate reasons.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to set aside the orders and remit the matter for reconsideration.

The Assistant Commissioner’s order did not give detailed reasons, did not show that the petitioner had an adequate opportunity to place material on record, and was silent on condonation of the delay.

The record also did not establish whether a separate order condoning the approximately 15-year delay had been passed.

Although the Deputy Commissioner affirmed the Assistant Commissioner’s findings, that did not resolve these procedural deficiencies.

Given the related civil proceedings, the Court declined to determine the parties’ substantive rights and instead directed reconsideration of both the appeal and the delay application.

Both parties may file pleadings and documents, and the Assistant Commissioner must hear them and decide the appeal, including the delay application, in accordance with law.

No order was made as to costs.