Mohd Yaqoob vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue) & Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar, J

With the appearance of learned counsel for the caveators, caveat stands discharged.

1 This intra-Court appeal, at the instance of the appellant, is directed against an order and judgment dated 23.07.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“writ Court”] in WP(C) No.1103/2023 titled Mohd. Yaqoob v. Financial Commissioner and another, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging an order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, has been dismissed.

2 The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellant on multiple grounds. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged in the present appeal, it would be apposite to notice, in brief, the facts giving rise to the controversy.

3 Land measuring 48 kanals and 03 marlas, comprised in Khasra Nos.73, 85 and 88-min, situated at Estate Channi Kamala, Tehsil Bahu, District Jammu [“the subject land”], vested in Shera, an occupancy tenant, upon extinguishment of the rights of the erstwhile landlords under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act [“the Act”]. Upon the demise of Shera, the land devolved upon his successors and, through successive mutations of inheritance, ultimately came to vest in Sain Mohd., father of the appellant, and thereafter in the appellant by virtue of Mutation No.1674.The controversy, however, essentially revolves around Mutation No.39 dated 10.03.1959, whereby ownership rights in respect of the land in question were conferred upon Abdul Rahim and Mohd. Hussain. According to the appellant, Abdul Rahim was neither a member of the family of Shera nor otherwise entitled to claim ownership under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act. It was also alleged that Mutation No.39 suffered from several legal and factual infirmities, including interpolation in the mutation register, chronological inconsistencies in the revenue record and its attestation in favour of Mohd. Hussain despite his having allegedly died prior to the date of attestation.

4 Aggrieved of Mutation No.39, Sain Mohd., father of the appellant, preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. The said appeal came to be allowed vide order dated 21.05.1991, whereby Mutation No.39 was set aside. Respondent No.2, thereafter, instituted a revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner on 16.11.2020 calling in question the order dated 21.05.1991 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. The case set up in the revision petition, inter alia, was that the persons who had acquired interest in the land in question through registered sale deeds executed by Abdul Rahim were necessary parties to the proceedings before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, but had not been impleaded. It was further pleaded that the knowledge of the order dated 21.05.1991 was acquired by them only in the year 2017, when the concerned revenue authorities declined to issue revenue extracts on the basis of the said order.The learned Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 27.02.2023, allowed the revision petition. He condoned the delay in filing the revision petition, holding, inter alia, that the purchasers under the registered sale deeds were necessary parties to the proceedings before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner and had been condemned unheard. The learned Financial Commissioner further held that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner had failed to consider the question of limitation before entering into the merits of the appeal. Consequently, the order dated 21.05.1991 was set aside and Mutation No.39 dated 10.03.1959 was upheld.

5 Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the appellant approached the writ Court by way of WP(C) No.1103/2023. Before the writ Court, it was contended, inter alia, that the revision petition filed before the learned Financial Commissioner was itself not maintainable, having been instituted after an inordinate and unexplained delay. It was further urged that the learned Financial Commissioner had travelled beyond the permissible scope of revisional jurisdiction and had erroneously interfered with the order dated 21.05.1991 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner.

6 The writ petition was resisted by the respondents by filing their objections. It was contended that the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner was legally sustainable. According to the respondents, Mutation No.39 had been attested as far back as on 10.03.1959, whereas the same came to be challenged before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner after more than three decades, without any plausible explanation for such inordinate delay and without even an application seeking condonation of delay.It was further contended that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner had not recorded any finding whatsoever on the issue of limitation and, without determining whether the appeal before him was maintainable, had proceeded to examine the matter on merits and set aside Mutation No.39.The respondents further submitted that the revision petition came to be filed before the learned Financial Commissioner on 16.11.2020 and that the delay in its institution had been duly explained. The learned Financial Commissioner, according to the respondents, had specifically considered the question of delay and assigned reasons for condoning the same in paragraph 6 of the order dated 27.02.2023.It was also urged that the purchasers, who had acquired interest in the land through registered sale deeds executed by Abdul Rahim, were necessary parties to the proceedings before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. Despite the registered sale deeds having been executed as far back as in the year 1981, the appellant had deliberately failed to implead the purchasers in the proceedings before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. The respondents contended that the purchasers were residents of Channi Kamala and were directly affected by the order dated 21.05.1991, which had been passed in their absence and without affording them an opportunity of being heard. It was submitted before the writ Court that respondent No.2 was not a party to the proceedings before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner and acquired knowledge of the order dated 21.05.1991 only in the year 2017, when the concerned Patwari declined to issue the requisite revenue extract on the ground that the said order had affected the revenue record. It was submitted that, immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the order, steps were taken to institute the revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner.It was, thus, contended that the delay in approaching the learned Financial Commissioner was neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence on the part of the respondents. All relevant aspects, including the circumstances in which the respondents acquired knowledge of the order dated 21.05.1991, had been duly considered by the learned Financial Commissioner while condoning the delay. It was further submitted that it was incumbent upon the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner to have first examined the question of limitation before entering into the merits of the appeal. Having failed to do so, the order dated 21.05.1991, according to the respondents, could not be sustained in law. It was further submitted that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner had set aside Mutation No.39 without either condoning the delay or recording any reasons for entertaining the appeal after such an enormous lapse of time.On these premises, it was urged before the writ Court that the learned Financial Commissioner had rightly exercised the revisional jurisdiction vested in him and had rightly set aside the order dated 21.05.1991 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, while upholding Mutation No.39 dated 10.03.1959 pertaining to the land situated at Estate Channi Kamala, Tehsil Bahu, District Jammu.

7 The writ Court, having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, concluded that the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, patent perversity, manifest illegality or failure of justice warranting interference by it in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.The writ Court further held that the learned Financial Commissioner had rightly exercised the revisional jurisdiction vested in him and had corrected the material irregularities committed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same came to be dismissed vide order and judgment dated 23.07.2026, which has given rise to the present intra-Court appeal.

8 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the writ Court does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity warranting interference by us in this appeal.

9 Indisputably, mutation No. 39 was attested on 10.03.1959 and the same was intact till 21.05.1991, when the Additional Deputy Commissioner entertained a highly belated appeal and set it aside. During this period between 10.03.1959 and 21.05.1991, Abdul Rahim, in whose favour mutation No. 39 stood attested, had, through legitimate means, sold it to respondent No. 2 through the medium of different sale deeds. Not only were the sale deeds executed and duly registered, but on the basis thereof, relevant mutations were also attested by the competent revenue officers. Respondent No. 2, i.e., the nine residents named in the resolution passed by the residents of Channi Kamala, raised the construction of their residential houses after seeking proper building permissions from the concerned Municipal Authority. It is not the case of the appellant that he was not aware of the attestation of mutation No. 39 or that he could not know that the subject land was under the occupation of various people who had purchased it from Abdul Rahim, the beneficiary of mutation No. 39 of 1959. He kept quiet for almost three decades and decided to file a highly belated appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, in the year 1990.

10 True it is that he did not even think it proper to move a formal application for condonation of delay, nor did he, in his memorandum of appeal, explain such huge delay of three decades in approaching the Court. It is, thus,unfortunate that the Additional Deputy Commissioner entertained the belated appeal and ignored the delay of three decades and interfered with the mutation attested in the year 1959 vide its order dated 21.05.1991. The order dated 21.05.1991 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner does not indicate any reasons or justification for ignoring such a huge delay of three decades, more particularly when during the interregnum the subject land had already changed hands and was, at the relevant point of time, in possession of bona fide purchasers represented by respondent No. 2 herein.

11 The writ Court has taken note of the case law on the subject to hold that the question of limitation is not a mere procedural formality, but it goes to the very root of maintainability of the proceedings and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Additional Deputy Commissioner to first address the issue of limitation before embarking upon examination of the matter on merits.Without elaborating much on the admitted position of law, suffice it to say that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and, therefore, can be considered in the context of pleadings of the parties.

12 It is true that an appeal under Section 12 of the Land Revenue Act cannot be filed beyond a period of limitation of 60 days, yet the competent Revenue Authority is well within its right and has the discretion to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period, provided it is sufficiently explained. Whether or not the delay is sufficiently explained is again a question of fact to be determined on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record. In the case on hand, there was no formal application by the appellant seeking condonation of delay, nor was any material placed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner to justify challenging the mutation attested in the year 1959 by way of an appeal filed in the year 1991, more particularly when the subject property had changed hands and was no more in possession of either the appellant or Mr. Abdul Rahim, the successor-in-interest of respondent No. 2. In such circumstances, it would not be wholly unjustified to infer that the appellant, who was aware of attestation of mutation No. 39 and was out of possession, had acquiesced in the mutation and, therefore, the challenge to the mutation by way of an appeal in the year 1990 was only an afterthought and a ploy to exploit the residents who were the bona fide purchasers of the subject land.

13 Equally untenable is the argument of the appellant that the Financial Commissioner could not have entertained the revision petition against the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner passed on 21.05.1991. As is rightly discussed by the writ Court, respondent No. 2 had sufficiently explained the delay. When they purchased the subject land from Mr. Abdul Rahim, the beneficiary of mutation No. 39, there was no dispute between the appellant and Abdul Rahim with regard to the subject land. They purchased the subject land from Abdul Rahim, who was vested with the same in terms of mutation No. 39, for consideration and thereafter raised their residential houses. They had the requisite mutations also attested on the basis of validly executed deeds between Abdul Rahim and them. It was only when some of them intended to sell their land, they were confronted in the revenue records with the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 21.05.1991, a perusal whereof revealed, for the first time, that mutation No. 39 had been set aside by the Additional Deputy Commissioner vide its order dated 21.05.1991. It is at that time respondent No. 2 came to know about the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and they wasted no time in approaching the Financial Commissioner by way of a revision petition, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), vide its order dated 23.07.2026. The writ Court has very aptly considered the entire controversy and upheld the order of the Financial Commissioner. In the given facts and circumstances and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we see no good reason to take a view contrary to the one taken by the writ Court. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.