ammu and Kashmir High Court dismisses appeals challenging land mutations, citing unjustifiable delay and lack of proof of fraud.
In a significant judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has quashed the order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) concerning a series of appeals and revisions filed against land mutations that dated back over four decades. The court, presided over by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, ruled that the appeals were time-barred and unjustifiable due to the absence of material evidence regarding the discovery of alleged fraud.
The case, titled Vikas Dhar v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), revolved around the challenge to various mutations related to land measuring 5 Kanals 1 Marla in Estate Sonwar, Srinagar. These mutations were originally attested between 1972 and 1988. The petitioner, Vikas Dhar, contended that the Financial Commissioner erroneously condoned the delay in filing the appeals, which were initiated by the respondent over 40 years after the mutations were attested.
Justice Wani emphasized that although the Land Revenue Act of 1996 does not specify a limitation period for revisions, established legal precedents limit the exercise of revisional jurisdiction to a reasonable period, typically three years, and in cases of alleged fraud, not beyond five years. He noted that the respondent had failed to file a formal application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, nor did he provide a clear date of knowledge or discovery of fraud, undermining the case for condonation.
The court scrutinized the procedural history, highlighting the respondent's involvement in the attestation of Mutation No. 1074 in 1983, which indicated his awareness of the mutations. Furthermore, the judgment pointed out that the alleged fraud was not proven, as no material particulars were disclosed in the pleadings.
Justice Wani underscored that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction should not unsettle orders after an unreasonable lapse of time, particularly when third-party rights might have been established due to the passage of time. The court concluded that the Financial Commissioner erred by condoning the delay based solely on the merits of the appeals without addressing the threshold issue of limitation.
The judgment reaffirms the principle that revisional or appellate jurisdiction under land revenue laws must be exercised within a reasonable period to ensure finality in litigation and prevent indefinite uncertainty. It serves as a reminder that courts must balance substantial justice with statutory limitation provisions, maintaining public confidence in the rule of law.
Bottom Line:
Revisional or appellate jurisdiction under land revenue laws must be exercised within a reasonable period, even in cases alleging fraud. Lack of specific pleadings or proof regarding date of knowledge or discovery of fraud undermines condonation of delay.
Statutory provision(s): Land Revenue Act, 1996 Section 12, Section 15; Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 Section 22; Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
