HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on 04.03.2025 Pronounced on 02.05.2025 WP(C) No. 1725/2024(O&M) c/w WP(C) No. 1482/2024(O&M) Prehlad Singh …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv. Vs Union Territory of J&Kand others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Adv. vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Nirmal Kotwal, Adv for No. 4 Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE JUDGMENT WP(C) No. 1482/2024 1. The petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2-Yuvraj Singh are brothers of respondent No. 4. The dispute in the present petition is in respect of Mutation No. 163 dated 06.04.2016 attested in favour of the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and proforma respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal against Mutation No. 163 before the appellate authority in the month of December-2023 along with application seeking condonation of delay by stating that the petitioner in connivance with the proforma respondent No. 1-Tehsildar, Samba got the aforesaid mutation attested at her back by virtue of which she was held entitled to less than actual share, which she otherwise was entitled to along with petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2. It was 2 WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024 asserted by the respondent No. 4 that the proforma respondent No. 1 knowingly that she was entitled to equal share in the estate, without affording any opportunity of hearing to her, attested the mutation impugned. 2. It was stated by respondent No. 4 that the petitioner had filed a suit against her and proforma respondent No. 2 and when she received the copy of the plaint and Mutation No. 163 dated 06.04.2016, she came to know that the Mutation Officer had wrongly attested the mutation. 3. The petitioner objected to the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 3 by filing response to the appeal stating therein that after the demise of Rukmani Devi, the property was inherited by the petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2 in equal shares and the share of respondent No. 4 was one-eighth. It was further stated that the appellant has not only disposed of the land comprising survey No. 54 but also survey No. 80 measuring 1 Kanal in favour of Pooja Devi W/o. Rajeshwar Singh and Rajni Devi w/o. Darshan Singh, but this fact has not been disclosed by the appellant-respondent No. 4 herein in appeal before the respondent No. 3. It was pleaded by the petitioner that respondent No. 4 had levelled no allegations at the time of getting the Fard Intikhab for the purpose of executing sale deed in favour of Pooja Devi, Rajni Devi and Soma Devi and she herself executed and got the sale deed registered in favour of aforesaid vendees and the sale deed was executed only on the basis of Mutation No. 163. 3 WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024 4. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Samba respondent No. 3 herein vide order dated 11.06.2024 condoned the delay. The petitioner has impugned order dated 11.06.2024 on the grounds that respondent No. 4 had already disposed of one kanal of land comprising khasra No. 80 in favour of Pooja Devi w/o Rajeshwar Singh and Rajni Devi w/o Darshan Singh after obtaining Fard Intikhab Jamabandi from the revenue authorities and as such, she was well aware that the Mutation 163 was attested in favour of respondent No. 4 by the proforma respondent No. 1 but she did not disclose the alienation of the land comprising survey No. 80 in its appeal before respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 4 again disposed of landed property comprising survey No. 54 measuring10 marlas in favour of Soma Devi after obtaining Fard Intikhab from the revenue agency on 27.11.2022 and as such, she was well aware about the mutation impugned by her in the appeal. 5. The respondent No. 4 has objected the petition preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the above titled writ petition was filed on 27.06.2024 and interim order was passed on 01.07.2024 whereas the petitioner had already appeared before respondent No. 3 and argued the matter through his counsel and was well aware that the main appeal stood decided by the appellate authority on 25.06.2024. It is stated by the respondent No. 4 that she being a lady had no knowledge about the attestation of impugned mutation by virtue of which, less share was 4 WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024 granted to her and when it came to her knowledge, she immediately filed appeal before the competent authority. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. A perusal of the record of the office of respondent No. 3 reveals that the appeal was filed on 04.12.2023 before the appellate authority in respect of the Mutation No. 163 attested on 06.04.2016. It was stated by the appellant therein that the mutation of inheritance was attested at her back. The respondent No. 4 in her appeal stated that she had disposed of land measuring 10 marlas comprising khasra No. 54 to one Soma Devi w/o. Mohinder Singh by way of a sale deed and she got the knowledge of the mutation only after the suit was filed by the petitioner. 8. The petitioner in his response before the appellate authority had specifically stated that the respondent No. 4 was having the knowledge of the Mutation No. 163 (supra) as she had sold the land measuring 1 kanal to Pooja Devi and Rajni Devi and 10 marals to Soma Devi. She executed the sale deed only after obtaining the Fard Intikhab Jamabandi and her name was entered into the revenue record, pursuant to mutation No. 163 impugned by the respondent No.4 and as such, she cannot be heard to say that she was not aware of the mutation, when she after obtaining the benefit of the impugned mutation sold the land. 9. The petitioner has placed on record the report of Patwari, substantiating the alienation of not only 10 marlas of land in favour of Soma Devi, but also 1 kanal of land comprising khasra No. 80 sold by respondent No. 4 to Pooja Devi and Rajni Devi. 5 WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024 10. The respondent No. 4 admittedly had not stated the alienation of land measuring 1 kanal comprising khasra No. 80 in her appeal preferred before respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has disposed of the application for condonation of delay on 11.06.2024 in three lines, which part of the order is extracted as under: “that the matter of condonation of delay is argued during the Court proceedings and Court is convinced beyond doubt that appellant was not aware of the impugned order and has filed the instant appeal as soon as it came to her knowledge”. 11. The reasons are the soul of the judgment and once the judgement sans reasons, then the same cannot be sustained. A perusal of the order impugned dated 11.06.2024 reveals that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by respondent No. 3 while condoning the delay except that she was not aware of the impugned order and has filed the instant appeal as soon as it came to her knowledge. The respondent No.3 has not even bothered to reflect in the order as to when and how the respondent No.4 acquired the knowledge. When the reasons are not furnished by the adjudicating authority in its decision, it amounts to non-application of mind. Hon‟ble Suprerme Court of India, after taking note of its various earlier pronouncements in „CCT v. Shukla & Bros., (2010) 4 SCC 785’, has held as under: “23. We are not venturing to comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the contentions of law raised before the High Court in the present petition, but it was certainly expected of the High Court to record some kind of reasons for rejecting the revision petition filed by the Department at the very threshold. A litigant has a legitimate expectation of knowing reasons for rejection of his claim/prayer. It is then alone, that a party would be in a position to challenge the order on 6 WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024 appropriate grounds. Besides, this would be for the benefit of the higher or the appellate court. As arguments bring things hidden and obscure to the light of reasons, reasoned judgment where the law and factual matrix of the case is discussed, provides lucidity and foundation for conclusions or exercise of judicial discretion by the courts. 24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be. 25. We would reiterate the principle that when reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that process of correction is in place and working. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should not only appear to be implemented but also seem to have been properly implemented. Reasons for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence and would provide due satisfaction to the consumer of justice under our justice dispensation system. It may not be very correct in law to say, that there is a qualified duty imposed upon the courts to record reasons. (emphasis added) 12. In „East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao’, (2010) 7 SCC 678, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: “23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. This may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in 7 WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024 question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable.” (emphasis added) 13. The respondent No. 3 was required to consider the case of the petitioner as well while deciding the application seeking condonation of delay, because the petitioner had specifically pleaded that respondent No. 4 after getting the benefit of Mutation No. 163 had alienated 1 kanal and 10 marlas of land in favour of Pooja Devi, Rajni Devi and Soma Devi. The respondent No. 3 was required to record reasons for arriving at a conclusion that the appellant was not aware of the impugned order, and she filed the appeal as soon as it came to her knowledge. 14. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such, the same is set aside. WP(C) No. 1725/2024 15. Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 25.06.2024, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 has been accepted and the matter has been remanded to Tehsildar, Samba-proforma respondent No. 1 herein, for de novo enquiry. As this Court has set aside the order dated 11.06.2024, whereby delay in filing the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 was condoned, the natural consequence is that the order dated 25.06.2024 is also set aside. Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims of the contesting parties and respondent No. 3 shall decide the application seeking condonation of delay afresh after 8 WP(C) Nos. 1725/2024 & 1482/2024 affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties, by passing a reasoned order. 16. Record, if any, received in original be returned to the counsel for the official respondents. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu 02.05.2025 Rakesh PS Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No KARAM CHAND 2025.05.03 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document