Validity of final and unchallenged revenue mutations cannot be adjudicated by the writ court.

The subject land (17 kanals 12 marlas) was originally held by one Budha Ram as a protected tenant

In May 1971, he allegedly surrendered his tenancy, leading to the attestation of Mutation No. 104

Subsequently, Mutation No. 106 (Jan 1972) recorded the owners in self-cultivation (Khud Kasht Malkan), and Mutation No. 115 (Oct 1972) recorded Budha Ram as an "unauthorized occupant"

However, in 1986, via Mutation No. 221, Budha Ram was declared a "prospective owner" under Section 4 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976

This mutation was set aside by the Director of Land Records in 1996, a decision upheld by the J&K Special Tribunal in 2003 on the grounds that Mutations 104, 106, and 115 had attained finality

The private respondents (heirs of Budha Ram) challenged the Tribunal's order via a writ petition. The learned Writ Court, by judgment dated 23.11.2022, quashed the Tribunal’s order and Mutation No. 221, remitting the matter to the Tehsildar for a de novo enquiry into the validity of the 1971-72 mutations

The appellants (owners) challenged this before the Division Bench.

Whether the Writ Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by questioning the validity of Mutations 104, 106, and 115 when they were never specifically challenged by the private respondents.

Whether Mutation No. 221 could be legally attested under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act while prior mutations recording surrender of tenancy and unauthorized occupation remained in force.

The Court applied the principles of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, specifically Section 4, which confers ownership rights on tillers in cultivating possession during Kharif 1971

the doctrine of finality of administrative actions, noting that revenue entries (mutations) that remain unchallenged over a long duration cannot be collateral subjects of a writ petition

limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, asserting that a court cannot adjudicate upon matters not directly raised or challenged in the pleadings

The Division Bench observed that the private respondents had never challenged Mutations 104, 106, and 115, which established the surrender of tenancy and Budha Ram's status as an "unauthorized occupant"

The Court reasoned that so long as these mutations stood, Mutation No. 221 (declaring him a prospective owner) could not have been validly attested by the Tehsildar as the record contradicted the requirement of lawful possession

The Bench critiqued the Writ Court’s approach, noting that it had engaged in speculation regarding the "possibility of manipulation" of 1971 documents without a direct challenge or evidence

The Court held that the Writ Court’s jurisdiction was limited to examining the correctness of the Tribunal's 2003 order; by ordering a de novo enquiry into unchallenged mutations from decades prior, the Writ Court erred in law

The Court held that the Special Tribunal correctly found Mutation No. 221 to be unsustainable in light of the finality of Mutations 104, 106, and 115

The Court directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner to proceed with pending possession recovery proceedings independently of any observations made in the litigation

the court granted liberty to the private respondents to seek appropriate legal remedies specifically against Mutations 104, 106, and 115 if they so chose