Section 32 revenue suits require pleadings, evidence, and documents consistent with natural justice.

The private respondents filed a suit under Section 32 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act before the Collector, Udhampur, seeking correction of the Record of Rights concerning land comprised in new Khasra No. 300, corresponding to old Khasra Nos. 2639 and 2655.

The Collector decreed the suit on 30.06.2017 and directed correction of the revenue entries, including omission of the petitioner’s name from the relevant cultivation record.

The petitioner challenged the order before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, and thereafter before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu; both authorities dismissed his challenges.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that he had not been directed to file a written statement, produce documents, or lead evidence, and that his objections to the Tehsildar’s report had not been considered.

The record showed that although the petitioner had appeared through counsel and had applied for adherence to proper procedure, the Collector decided the matter without framing issues, recording evidence, or affording an effective opportunity of hearing.

1. Whether the Collector, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act, was required to follow the principles of natural justice and afford the parties an opportunity to file pleadings, produce documents, and lead evidence.

2. Whether the Collector acted unlawfully in deciding the suit primarily on the basis of the plaint and the Tehsildar’s report without considering the petitioner’s objections or providing him an opportunity to substantiate his claim.

3. Whether the appellate and revisional authorities erred in upholding the Collector’s order without addressing the procedural violation alleged by the petitioner.

The Court applied Section 32 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act, under which a Collector adjudicating disputes concerning revenue entries exercises quasi-judicial jurisdiction and must hear the affected parties.

Section 15-A empowers Revenue Officers to summon persons and record their statements.

Rule 21 of the Land Revenue Rules requires pleadings and statements in revenue proceedings to be recorded in the prescribed manner, while Rules 26 and 27 require recording of a memorandum of evidence and reasons for orders passed on the merits.

The governing principle was that natural justice requires parties to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to file pleadings, produce documents, examine witnesses, and support their respective claims before valuable rights in property are determined.

The Court also relied on Ahali Manhassan v. Financial Commissioner & Others, OWP No. 201/2007, decided on 20.11.2008, which held that a suit under Section 32 must be decided after hearing the parties and allowing them to substantiate their claims regarding revenue entries.

The Court found from the Collector’s record that the petitioner had appeared in the proceedings but had neither been formally called upon to file a written statement nor given an opportunity to produce documents or lead evidence.

His application specifically requesting adoption of proper procedure and an opportunity to lead evidence was not acted upon.

The Collector instead relied on the allegations in the plaint and the Tehsildar’s report, despite the petitioner’s objections to that report, without dealing with those objections in the final order.

Since the proceedings under Section 32 affected the petitioner’s valuable property and revenue-record rights, compliance with the statutory procedure and natural justice was mandatory even though the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply in its entirety.

The appellate and revisional authorities also failed to address this fundamental procedural defect.

The writ petition was allowed.

The orders dated 30.06.2017 of the Collector, Udhampur, 06.12.2017 of the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, and 06.02.2019 of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu, were set aside.

The matter was remanded to the Collector, Udhampur, for fresh adjudication after affording all parties an opportunity to file pleadings and produce evidence and documents, preferably within six months from receipt of the order.