HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 1388/2022 Reserved on:- 02.09.2025. Pronounced on:- 11.09.2025 Sudershan Singh and ors. …..Appellants Through: Mr. G.S Thakur, Advocate Vs Financial Commissioner, J&K and ors. .…. Respondents Through: Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Mr. Balbir Singh Manhas, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners, through the medium of present writ petition have challenged order dated 30.03.2022 passed by respondent No. 1, order dated 07.02.2019 passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 20.08.2016 passed by respondent No. 3. 2. Vide order dated 20.08.2016, the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 against Mutation No. 2606 dated 27.06.2013 of Village Raipur Domana, in respect of land measuring 07 kanals 13 marlas falling in khasra No. 555 of said village has been set aside and SDM Jammu North has been directed to visit the spot and get the land falling in khasra Nos. 554, 555 and 545 demarcated in presence of the representative of the Custodian Department. Vide order dated 07.02.2019, respondent No. 2, while deciding the revision petition filed by respondent No. 4 Sr. No. 92 2 WP(C) No. 1388/2022 against order dated 20.08.2016 passed by respondent No. 3 to the extent of direction regarding demarcation of land falling in khasra Nos. 554, 555 and 545 of village Raipur Domana and the direction regarding maintenance of status quo on spot till the disposal of the case by the Custodian Department, the Revisional Authority has made a recommendation to respondent No. 1 to set aside the order passed by respondent No. 3 to the extent of directing demarcation of the land and directing maintenance of status quo on spot position, till the disposal of the case by the Custodian Department. Vide order dated 30.3.2022 passed by respondent No. 1, reference made by respondent No. 2 has been accepted and the order of respondent No. 3 to the extent of direction regarding demarcation of the land and maintenance on spot position has been set aside. 3. As per case of the petitioners, Mutation No. 2606 of Sehat-Indraj Girdawari i.e. correction of the Girdawari for the year 2012-2013 was attested by Tehsildar Jammu vide order passed on 27.06.2013 on the basis of enquiry conducted by him on the finding of physical verification with respect to land measuring 08 kanals 02 marlas falling in khasra No. 555 and 01 kanal 01 marla falling in khasra No. 567 min situated at village Raipur Domana Tehsil and District Jammu. It has been submitted that upon physical verification, the petitioners who are sons of Amar Singh @ Amar Nath were found to be in cultivating 3 WP(C) No. 1388/2022 possession of the land falling in khasra No. 555. Accordingly, the Mutation No. 2606 dated 27.06.2013 was attested in their favour. 4. The aforesaid mutation was challenged by way of an appeal by respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 3 who, vide order dated 29.08.2016 allowed the said appeal despite the same being highly time barred and there being no application for condonation of delay. It has been submitted that respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order of Tehsildar and as such, the order passed by respondent No. 3 is nullity in the eyes of law. 5. It has been submitted that order of allotment pressed into service to substantiate claim of respondent No. 4 that the land has been allotted in his favour, is not in existence. It has further been submitted that Tehsildar Jammu was not competent to make allotment order of the land in question in favour of respondent No. 4 or his predecessor-in-interest as Tehsildar Jammu is vested with powers of Assistant Custodian 6. It has been submitted that the land in question was never notified as an evacuee property but the same was under ownership of Gian Singh and others as is reflected in the revenue record and there was no allotment in favour of respondent No. 4. It has been submitted that respondent No. 4 was in possession of land falling in khasra No. 552, 553 & 554 and was never in possession of land falling in khasra No. 555. It has been further 4 WP(C) No. 1388/2022 submitted that vide Mutation No. 4377 dated 26.05.2020, entry was attested in respect of land falling in khasra No. 552, 553 & 554 in favour of respondent No. 4 and his brothers on the basis of their possession over the said land. 7. According to the petitioners, they are in possession of land falling in khasra No. 555, where they have constructed their residential house, temple and plinth over 10 marlas of land and rest of the land is under their cultivating possession. It has been submitted that the said land was previously in possession of Bodh Raj who transferred the possession of the said land in favour of the petitioners by giving an undertaking in respect of land falling under khasra No. 555. It has been claimed that the mutation of Sehat Indraj has been attested in respect of land falling under khasra No. 545 on the basis of actual possession of the petitioners over the said land. 8. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders on the grounds that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not appreciated the controversy in its right perspective. It has been submitted that nothing was brought on record before respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that would indicate that the land in question is an evacuee property as the same was never declared as such, in terms of Section 6 of the Evacuee Administration of Property Act, 2006. It has been contended that respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to 5 WP(C) No. 1388/2022 entertain the proceedings against order of mutation in terms of provisions contained in Section 11 of the Land Revenue Act. 9. The private respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition in which they have contended that their father Sh. Ram Singh was refugee of 1971 and he was allotted land out of khasra No. 555 to the extent of 07 kanals 13 marlas at village Raipur Domana by Assistant Custodian (Tehsildar) Jammu whereinafter, he was put in possession of the same. It is submitted that after death of Ram Singh, respondent No. 4 continues to enjoy the fruits of land along with his brothers. It has been submitted that attestation of mutation of Sehat Indraj by Tehsildar Settlement in the absence of respondent No. 4 was absolutely illegal and has rightly been set aside by appellate authority and confirmed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 10. It has been further submitted that the Tehsildar while attesting mutation of Sehat Indraj in favour of the petitioners had held the enquiry in the absence of respondent No. 4 and the same was nothing but a fraudulent exercise and hence, nullity in the eyes of law. It has been contended that the petitioners have no right in respect of land falling in khasra No. 555 as according to their own case, they had purchased the land falling in khasra No. 545 from Bodh Raj to the extent of 10 marlas but they were put in possession of land falling in khasra No. 555. It has been submitted that if the contention of the petitioners is correct then, 6 WP(C) No. 1388/2022 their remedy lies somewhere else against the seller-Bodh Raj and they cannot lay a claim over the land allotted to the private respondents. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the record produced by the concerned Patwari. 12. The subject matter of the controversy in the present petition is mutation order No. 2606 dated 27.06.2013 attested by Tehsildar Jammu whereby Sehat Indraj in respect of Khasra Girdawari for the year, 2012-2013 relating to land measuring 07 kanals 13 marlas in khasra No. 555 situated at village Raipur Domana has been attested in favour of the petitioners. 13. A look at the order of mutation order dated 27.06.2013 passed by Tehsildar Jammu would reveal that the same has been passed on the basis of report dated 05.11.2011 of the Patwari Halqa Domana, which was endorsed to the Tehsildar by Naib Tehsildar Jammu on 23.12.2011. From a perusal of report of the Patwari, the endorsement of the Naib Tehsildar and order dated 27.06.2013 passed by Tehsildar, Jammu, it is clear that the mutation of Sehat Indraj in favour of the petitioners has been attested at the back of the private respondents. 14. It is to be noted that in the khasra girdawaris prior to 2012-2013, the entry in the cultivation column in respect of land 7 WP(C) No. 1388/2022 falling in khasra No. 555 has been consistently reflected in the name of Ram Singh-predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents w.e.f Kharief 1977 when the land in question was allotted by Tehsildar Jammu in his capacity as Assistant Custodian Evacuee Properties in his favour. All of a sudden, in the year, 2012-2013, this entry came to be changed by Tehsildar Jammu by virtue of mutation order dated 27.06.2013 and the name of predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents was removed and in his place, the names of petitioners have been reflected. This has been done at the back of the private respondents. Hence, the mutation of Sehat Indraj attested in favour of the petitioners is clearly in violation of Standing Order 23-A which governs the procedure laid down for attestation of mutations and it is also in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the learned appellate authority as well as the Revisional Authorities including respondent No. 1 are right in holding that the mutation No. 2606 dated 27.06.2013 is nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained. 15. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allotment order in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents as no such order has been produced on record. It is true that allotment order issued by the Assistant Custodian/Tehsildar Jammu in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of private respondents is not available 8 WP(C) No. 1388/2022 on record but the revenue record produced by the Tehsildar clearly makes reference to allotment order in favour of Ram Singh in the entry relating to Kharief 1977. The said entry continues to be unaltered upto the year, 2012-2013. From this, it can be safely inferred that the land in question was allotted in favour of Ram Singh-predecessor-in-interest of private respondents. 16. Apart from the above, the private respondents have placed on record a document issued by Tehsildar Jammu bearing Endorsement No. TR. 319 dated 14.09.1977 vide which the Patwari Halqa, Raipur Domana has been directed to handover possession of land measuring 07 kanals 03 marlas falling in Khasra No. 555 to Ram Singh-predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents in his capacity as an allottee of the said land. The said docket has been issued by Tehsildar Jammu in his capacity as Assistant Custodian. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in answer to the writ petition in which it has been clearly stated that in terms of SRO 144 of 1975 dated 31.03.1975, Tehsildar Jammu was appointed as Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Properties for the purpose of discharging the duties under Evacuees Administration of Properties Act and, therefore, was competent to make allotment of the evacuee land in favour of predecessor-in-interest of private respondents. Thus, there is ample material on record to show that the land measuring 07 kanals 13 marlas falling in khasra No. 555 was allotted in favour 9 WP(C) No. 1388/2022 of Ram Singh-predecessor-in-interest of private respondents by Tehsildar Jammu in the year, 1977. 17. The petitioners are laying claim over the land falling in khasra No. 555 on the basis that Bodh Raj had transferred the land falling in khasra No. 545 in their favour and instead of taking possession of land under said khasra number, they have taken possession of land in khasra No. 555. This in itself defeats the case of the petitioners because they cannot lay a claim to the land falling in khasra No. 555 which admittedly, has not been transferred in their favour by Bodh Raj. 18. That takes us to the contention of the petitioners with regard to jurisdiction of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to entertain challenge of mutation order dated 27.06.2013. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by respondent No. 1 in his order dated 30.03.2022 It has been noted that impugned mutation has been attested by Tehsildar, Settlement and Regional Director, Survey and Land Records (ex-officio Settlement Commissioner) and Commissioner Survey & Land Records (Ex-officio Settlement Commissioner) are competent to take cognizance of such mutations in appeal/revision as they exercise the powers of Collector/Divisional Commissioner in respect of tracts under Settlement as provided under Section 11 of the Land Revenue Act read with Section 6(6) of the said Act. The said position of law 10 WP(C) No. 1388/2022 cannot be disputed and therefore, the contentions of the petitioners in this regard is misconceived. 19. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The same are, accordingly, upheld and the writ petition is dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 11.09.2025 Tarun/PS Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? No Mahavir Singh 2025.09.11 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document