HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2465/2024 Pronounced on : 07.11.2025 Uploaded on :10.11.2025 1. Naresh Kumar. 2. Romesh Kumar. 3. Jai Singh. All Sons of Sh. Bachiter Singh, R/o 635, Subash Nagar, Jammu. .....Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. M L Gupta, Advocate v/s 1. UT of J & K through Commissioner/Secretary representing Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. Additional Deputy Commissioner With powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu. 3. Kishore Kumar. 4. Ashok Kumar. 5. Sikander Singh. Respondent No. 3 to 5 are the sons of Sh. Deru, Residents of H. No. 706, Subash Nagar, Jammu. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Mr. K S Chib, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners herein are seeking quashment of order dated 27.04.2022 [“the impugned order”], passed by Respondent No. 2-Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu [“the Appellate Court”] in case titled “Kishore Kumar Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors.”, by virtue of which the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned. 2. Before considering the grounds urged by Mr. M L Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of the case Sr. No. 31 2 WP (C) No. 2465/2024 set up in the petition, this Court deems it appropriate to state few facts, as are germane, to the disposal of this petition. 3. One Bachiter Singh, father of the petitioners, was allottee of the land measuring 09 Kanals 07 Marlas falling under Khasra No. 158 situated at Chak Jaffar, Tehsil and District Jammu vide Govt. Order No. 578-C. After the death of Bachiter Singh, the land abovementioned was mutated in favour of the petitioners under Section 3-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act along with mutation of inheritance vide mutation No. 277 dated 20.02.2008 attested by Tehsildar Jammu. 4. Being aggrieved of the mutation (supra), Respondents No. 3 to 5 herein on 25.11.2013, preferred a revision before the Court of Commissioner Survey and Land Records (Ex-Officio Settlement Commissioner, J & K), Jammu [“the Settlement Commissioner”], on the ground that the land in question was allotted in favour of their mother-Kaki Devi. The Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 24.06.2016, dismissed the revision filed by the private respondents as not maintainable on the ground that the Commissioner (supra) had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. However, liberty was granted to the private respondents to approach the appropriate forum. 5. The Respondents No. 3 to 5, thereafter on 18.07.2016, preferred an appeal assailing the mutation in question before Respondent No. 2- Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu along with an application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Appellate Court vide order dated 27.04.2022, condoned the delay in 3 WP (C) No. 2465/2024 filing appeal and fixed the main matter for hearing. For ready reference, order impugned is reproduced as under: “Appellant counsel appeared. Respondent counsel appeared. Arguments on maintainability were heard from both sides. Delay is condoned in this case. For arguments on main appeal.” It is this order which is called in question before this Court. 6. Mr. M L Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that despite the fact that detailed objections to the application for condonation of delay had been filed by the petitioners before Respondent No. 2, however, without considering the objections filed thereto, the order impugned has been passed, which is cryptic in nature, the application has been allowed without passing a reasoned order. 7. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 3 to 5 before the Appellate Court stated that they had no knowledge of the attestation of mutation in question. However, the Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the private respondents in their appeal at Para 7 have categorically stated that the copy of the mutation was issued on 17.02.2012 and the revision, filed before the Settlement Commissioner, was preferred on 25.11.2013, which was preferred after 20 months from obtaining the certified copy of the mutation in question. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Appellate Court while passing the order impugned. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Mr. M L Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the instant petition can be disposed of at this stage by remanding the matter to the Appellate Court with a 4 WP (C) No. 2465/2024 direction to the Respondent No. 2 to pass fresh order after considering submissions of the respective parties in an application seeking condonation of delay, to which, Mr. K S Chib, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 to 5 has no objection. 9. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the instant petition with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, thereby directing the Respondent No. 2- Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu to consider the case of the parties on the application seeking condonation of delay filed by Respondent No. 3 to 5, by passing afresh reasoned order after hearing the petitioners as well as Respondent No. 3 to 5, within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order. Ordered, accordingly. 10. Ordered, accordingly. 10. The matter is, accordingly, remanded to Respondent No. 2- Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu. 11. Parties along with their respective counsels are directed to appear before Respondent No. 2- Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu along with necessary record on 17.11.2025. 12. Registry to send a copy of this order to Respondent No. 2 forthwith. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge JAMMU 07.11.2025 Manan Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : No Manan Mahajan 2025.11.04 21:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document