news details |
|
|
| HC pulls up revenue authorities for ignoring limitation in land dispute | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 3: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside the orders of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, and Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, in a longstanding Kathua land dispute, holding that revenue authorities cannot decide a time-barred appeal on merits without first determining whether the delay deserves condonation.
Justice Shahzad Azeem, while disposing of a petition filed by Prem Singh, observed that the question of limitation goes to the very root of jurisdiction and cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality.
The controversy concerned land measuring 27 kanals and 14 marlas situated at village Padari Pain, Tehsil Nagri Parole, district Kathua, over which the petitioner claimed ownership on the basis of adverse possession.
According to the case record, the petitioner had obtained a civil court decree on December 26, 2007, declaring his ownership rights over the land, following which Mutation No. 137 was attested in his favour by the Tehsildar, Kathua, on January 8, 2011.
However, a private respondent, Ram Kali, challenged the mutation before the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Kathua, on February 2, 2013, nearly two years after its attestation.
The Deputy Commissioner, by an order dated August 10, 2018, set aside the entire mutation on the ground that the civil court lacked jurisdiction under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.
The decision was subsequently upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, on October 9, 2021, and the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, on November 16, 2022.
Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the revenue authorities had acted without jurisdiction by entertaining a highly belated appeal without first examining the question of limitation.
Advocate Virender Bhat, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Deputy Commissioner had failed to consider the statutory limitation period and that the subsequent orders passed by the higher revenue authorities were consequently unsustainable.
Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, assisted by Advocate Sagira Jaffar, defended the impugned orders, arguing that the civil court decree forming the basis of the mutation was itself without jurisdiction.
After examining the record and relevant statutory provisions, Justice Shahzad Azeem observed that Section 22 of the Agrarian Reforms Act prescribes a limitation period of 60 days for filing an appeal.
The Court noted that although Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay upon showing sufficient cause, the appellate authority must first decide whether such delay deserves condonation before examining the dispute on merits.
Significantly, the High Court observed that the appeal against the mutation had been instituted approximately two years after its attestation, far beyond the prescribed limitation period.
The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner had proceeded directly to decide the merits without examining the limitation issue or recording any finding regarding condonation of delay.
Justice Shahzad Azeem held that deciding an appeal on merits without first determining whether it was within limitation constituted a material irregularity and jurisdictional error.
The Court further observed that the subsequent orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, which upheld the Deputy Commissioner's decision without addressing the limitation defect, also suffered from the same legal infirmity.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the orders dated November 16, 2022, and October 9, 2021, passed by the Financial Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner, respectively.
The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Kathua, to decide the question of limitation afresh and proceed to examine the dispute on merits only if the delay is condoned in accordance with law.
The High Court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying land dispute, leaving the substantive controversy open for consideration in accordance with law. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
