HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2064/2023 CM No 4787/2023 Reserved on:- 25.08.2025 Pronounced on :- 30.08.2025 Sukh Dev Singh and anr. …..Appellants Through: Mr. G.S Thakur, Advocate Vs Additional Deputy Commissioner, Reasi and ors. .…. Respondents Through: Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr AAG Mr Sandeep Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 30.08.2025 1. The petitioners, through the medium of present writ petition have challenged order dated 20.07.2023 passed by Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Reasi [hereinafter referred to as “appellate authority”] whereby, appeal filed by the petitioners along with 15 more persons against mutation order No. 648 dated 28.08.1981 under Section 4 and mutation No. 1414 dated 13.03.2010 under Section 8 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) passed by Tehsildar Reasi in respect of land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla falling in khasra No. 470-min situated at village Gran, Tehsil and District Reasi has been dismissed. 2. As per the case of the petitioners, their predecessor-in-interest was owner of land measuring 42 kanals 02 marlas falling in khasra No. 470 situated at village Gran Tehsil and District Reasi out of which land measuring 21 Sr. No. 68 2 WP(C) No. 2064/2023 kanals 01 marla was in cultivating possession of one Desu, the predecessor- in-interest of private respondents as a tenant. It has been submitted that remaining land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla was in peaceful cultivating possession of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Sh. Saroop Singh. 3. According to the petitioners, after coming into force of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, inadvertently, mutation under Section 4 was attested in respect of whole of the aforesaid land in favour of Late Desu vide mutation No. 648 dated 28.08.1981 despite the fact that he was in possession of only 21 kanals 01 marla of the land and remaining land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla was never in his cultivating possession. It has been submitted that the Mutating Officer without conducting any enquiry, escheated whole of the land comprised in khasra No. 470 to State. It has been further submitted that subsequently, during the proceedings of attestation of mutation in respect of aforesaid land under Section 8 of the Act in favour of Desu, it was found on spot verification conducted on the basis of statement made by Desu, that he is in possession of only land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla. Accordingly, mutation under Section 8 of the Act came to be attested in favour of Late Desu only in respect of land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla vide mutation No. 891 dated 29.03.1993. 4. It has been further submitted that father of the petitioners was continuously in cultivating possession of remaining land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla which was subsequently notified for acquisition vide notification dated 29.06.2006 in terms of Section 4 of the State Land Acquisition Act. It has 3 WP(C) No. 2064/2023 been submitted that intending department, police department took over the possession of the land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla from the father of the petitioners and the final award was passed in the year, 2008. The father of the petitioners is stated to have made an application before the Collector stating therein that though Late Desu had been declared as a tenant in respect of whole of the land falling under khasra No. 470, yet mutation No. 891 under Section 8 of the Act has been attested in his favour only in respect of land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla. The Collector is stated to have made a reference to the District Judge, Reasi to resolve this dispute. It has been submitted that subsequently, respondent No. 2 passed mutation order No. 1414 dated 13.03.2010 under Section 8 of the Act on the basis of an application made by the private respondents before respondent No.1. Vide the said order, the private respondents were declared as owners in respect of the balance land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla as well, though at that time, the intending department had already taken over the possession of the land in question. 5. The petitioners are stated to have filed an appeal against both the mutation orders viz. mutation No. 648 dated 28.08.1981 and mutation No. 1414 dated 13.03.2010 before the appellate authority which has been dismissed by the said authority in terms of the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 6. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders on the grounds that the appellate authority has not appreciated the controversy involved in the case in its right perspective. It has been contended that Late Desu had himself admitted that he was not in possession of the whole of the land measuring 42 4 WP(C) No. 2064/2023 kanals 02 marlas and it is on the basis of his statement that he was declared as owner in respect of only measuring 21 kanals 01 marla of land in terms of mutation order No. 891. It has been further contended that the appellate authority has failed to appreciate that in terms of provisions contained under Section 8 (4) of the Act, mutation under Section 8 could not have been attested in favour of the private respondents once the ownership of the land in question had vested in the State. It has been contended that mutation No. 1414 is bad in the eyes of law as the procedure prescribed under Standing Order 23-A has not been followed. 7. The private respondents have filed their objections to the writ petition in which it has been submitted that though the land in question belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners but they were not in possession of the land to the extent of 21 kanals 10 marla as has been claimed by them. It has been submitted that whole of the land measuring 42 kanals 02 marlas was in possession of Late Desu, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents and he was in cultivating possession of the said land in Kharief, 1971, whereafter, he was declared as prospective owner in terms of Section 4 of the Act. It has been contended that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Sh. Saroop Singh is a signatory to mutation order No. 648 dated 28.08.1981 and as such, he had the knowledge of the said mutation but neither Sh. Saroop Singh nor the petitioners challenged the said order until they filed the appeal before the appellate authority on 16.12.2017. 8. Thus, according to the private respondents, the appeal filed by the petitioners before the appellate authority is highly belated and the same has rightly been 5 WP(C) No. 2064/2023 dismissed by the appellate authority not only on the grounds of delay but also on merits. It has been submitted that Late Desu due to poverty could not deposit whole of the levy amount at the time when mutation No. 891 dated 29.03.1993 was attested and it is because of this reason only that mutation under Section 8 of the Act in respect of only 21 kanals 01 marla of the land was attested in his favour at that time. It has been further submitted that name of Desu has consistently been reflected in the column of cultivation in the revenue record relating to whole of the land measuring 42 kanals 02 marlas comprised in khasra No. 470 and the petitioners were never in possession of any portion of the said land. It has been also submitted that even mutation No. 1414 dated 13.03.2010 has been challenged by the petitioners after a lapse of more than 07 years without explaining the delay. It has been further submitted that attestation of mutation No. 1414 was a mere formality as Late Desu had already been declared as prospective owner in terms of mutation No. 648 dated 28.08.1981. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 10. By virtue of the appeal filed by the petitioners and co-appellants before the appellate authority, they had challenged two mutation orders, mutation order No. 648 dated 28.08.1981 under Section 4 of the Act and mutation order No. 1414 dated 13.03.2010 under Section 8 of the Act. As per mutation order No 648 dated 28.08.1981, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents namely Desu has been declared as prospective owner for whole of the land measuring 42 kanals 02marlas in khasra No. 470. This mutation has been attested under Section 4 of the Agrarian Reforms Act thereby, the ownership 6 WP(C) No. 2064/2023 rights of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in the said land have extinguished and the land has vested in State whereafter, predecessor-in- interest of the private respondents namely Desu has been declared as prospective owner of the said land. It seems that Saroop Singh, predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners is signatory to the said mutation order meaning thereby that the mutation was attested in his presence. 11. The record further shows that on 29.03.1993, mutation order No. 891 under Section 8 of the Act came to be attested in respect of land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla falling in khasra No. 470 in favour of Desu-predecessor-in- interest of the private respondents. A perusal of the order of mutation dated 29.03.1993 would reveal that Late Desu had prayed before the Mutating Officer that he is ready to deposit levy only in respect of the land which is actually in his cultivating possession. Thereafter, the concerned Patwari was asked to demarcate the land under the cultivating possession of Desu and it was found that he was in possession of only 21 kanals 01 marla of land. Accordingly, he was declared as owner in respect of said land in terms of Section 8 of the Act. It is also recorded in mutation dated 29.03.1993 that the land in question is not eligible to resumption under Section 7 of the Act. 12. The record further shows that the land including the land falling in khasra No 470 measuring 21 kanals 01 marla and khasra No. 470-min measuring 21 kanals 01 marla became subject matter of acquisition in terms of award dated 23.02.2008 and whole of the land measuring 42 kanals 02 marlas in khasra No. 470 measuring 21 kanal and 1 marla and khasra No. 470/470 min was acquired by the police department. Thereafter, on 13.03.2010, another 7 WP(C) No. 2064/2023 mutation order No. 1414 under Section 8 of the Act came to be passed in favour of the private respondents, who happen to be the successor-in-interest of Desu, in respect of the balance land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla comprised in khasra No. 470 min. 13. So far as challenge launched by the petitioners to mutation No. 648 dated 28.08.1981 is concerned, the same is highly belated. The petitioners have challenged the said mutation order after about 36 years. The fact that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Sh. Saroop Singh was present at the time of attestation of mutation estops the petitioners from taking a plea that they were not having knowledge about the attestation of the mutation. The mutation order No. 648, bears the signature of Saroop Singh, hence, knowledge of said mutation order can be imputed to the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest. Without explaining inordinate delay of 36 years, the challenge to the aforesaid mutation has rightly been rejected by the appellate authority. 14. That takes us to the mutation bearing Mutation No. 1414 dated 13.03.2010, whereby, balance land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla in khasra No. 470-min has been mutated in favour of the private respondents in terms of Section 8 of the Act. In this regard, it is to be noted that the said mutation order had been passed without the knowledge of the petitioners, therefore, their assertion in the application for condonation of delay filed before the appellate authority that they came to know about the said mutation order a few days before the date of filing of the appeal cannot be doubted. The 8 WP(C) No. 2064/2023 legality of mutation order dated 13.03.2010 is, therefore, required to be tested on its merits. 15. In the mutation order dated 13.03.2010, it has been recorded by the Mutating Officer that private respondents had stated before the said officer that because of poverty, they could not deposit whole of the levy amount even though they had been declared as prospective owners by virtue of mutation No. 648 dated 28.08.1981 in respect of whole of the land measuring 42 kanals 02 marlas. It has also been recorded that the land in question has now been acquired by the police department and is in its possession since 2008. The Mutating Officer has further recorded that the private respondents have deposited the levy along with surcharge. Whereafter, the officer has proceeded to attest the mutation under Section 8 of the Act in favour of the private respondents in respect of balance land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla as well. 16. Firstly, the facts recorded by the Mutating Officer in its order dated 13.03.2010 are contrary to the factual position recorded in mutation order No. 891 dated 29.03.1993 wherein, it is clearly recorded that Desu had requested the Mutating Officer to demarcate the actual area of the land in his possession so that he deposits the levy only in respect of that portion of the land which is actually in his possession. It is also recorded that the Patwari concerned demarcated the land and found Desu in possession of 21 kanals and 01 marla of land, regarding which he deposited the amount of levy. It is nowhere recorded in the mutation order dated 29.03.1993 that due to poverty, Desu was unable to deposit levy for whole of the land in his 9 WP(C) No. 2064/2023 possession. Thus, Mutating Officer has, on the basis of erroneous assumption of facts recorded in order dated 29.03.1993, passed the mutation order dated 13.03.2010. The said order, therefore, becomes unsustainable in law. 17. Apart from the above, in terms of Section 8 (4) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, where land in question has been or is declared for acquisition by the Government under any law for the time being in force and the prospective owner thereof has not acquired ownership rights until the date of such declaration, vesting of ownership rights until the date of such declaration, vesting of ownership rights in such land in such person shall not be effective and the installments of levy, if any, paid have to be refunded to such person in lump sum with interest @ 5 % per annum. In the present case, admittedly, the award in respect of balance land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla in khasra No. 470-min had already been passed and the said land had vested with the police department. Therefore, it was not open to the Mutating Officer to attest mutation under Section 8 of the Act in favour of the private respondents in respect of said portion of land. On this ground also, the impugned mutation order No. 1414 dated 13.03.2010 is not sustainable in law. However, the appellate authority has failed to notice and appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter while passing the impugned order. 18. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 passed by Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Reasi to the extent of upholding the validity of mutation No. 1414 dated 13.03.2010 under Section 8 of the Act in respect of the land 10 WP(C) No. 2064/2023 measuring 21 kanals 01 marla falling in khasra No. 470 min situated at village Gran Tehsil and District Reasi deserves to be set aside. Since the petitioners have not succeeded in their challenge to mutation order No. 648 dated 28.08.1981 under Section 4 of the Act and have not challenged order of mutation bearing No. 891 dated 23.03.1993 whereby they have been held ineligible to resume the land as such, they are not entitled to get the mutation of the left over land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla falling in khasra No. 470- min of village Gran, Tehsil and District Reasi, attested in their favour. 19. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the appellate authority to the extent it has upheld the validity of mutation No. 1414 dated 13.03.2010 under Section 8 of the Act in respect of land measuring 21 kanals 01 marla falling in khasra No. 470-min situated at village Gran Tehsil and District Reasi is set aside. Consequently, the said mutation order shall stand quashed. 20. Disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 30.08.2025 Tarun/P/S Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? Yes Mahavir Singh 2025.09.01 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document