HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 29.08.2025 Pronounced on: 04.09.2025 Case No.:- WP(C) No. 3862/2019 CM Nos. 8030/2019 & 7693/2020 Banarsi Dass & Ors …..Petitioners. Through: Mr. R.K.S. Thakur, Advocate. Vs Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K Government, Srinagar and ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1 & 8. Mr. S. M. Choudhary, Advocate for R-2 to 7. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners, through the medium of the present petition, have laid challenge to order dated 27.06.2019 passed by Financial Commissioner, Revenue (Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms) J&K, Jammu whereby order dated 22.05.2017 passed by respondent No. 8-Additional Commissioner (with powers of Divisional Commissioner), Jammu has been set aside. The petitioners have also sought a direction upon respondents No. 2 to 7 not to create any third party interest in the land, which is subject matter of the writ petition. 2. As per the case of the petitioners, they are the descendants of late Sh. Hoshiara and in that capacity they have inherited the 2 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 property left behind by said late Sh. Hoshiara. It has been submitted that Sh. Raghunath and Sh. Amar Nath, sons of Sh. Bashi and late Sh. Hoshiara, were the co-sharers of land measuring 340 kanals 15 marlas situated in village Chak Banotra. It has been further submitted that respondents No. 2 to 7 are successors-in-interest of Sh. Raghunath and Sh. Amar Nath, who have passed away. 3. According to the petitioners, their predecessor-in-interest late Sh. Hoshiara during his minority, upon death of his father, was taken by his mother to her parental house for shelter and maintenance and he was brought up by his maternal grandparents. Due to these circumstances, late Sh. Hoshiara was not in a position to cultivate his half share of the land situated in village Chak Banotra and his portion of the land was being cultivated by above named co-sharers. It has been submitted that mutation No. 64 was attested whereby it was shown that estate left behind by Sh. Bashi was inherited by Sh. Raghunath, Sh. Amar Nath and late Sh. Hoshiara, who were reflected as owners and residents of village Galali Tehsil Reasi. 4. It has been further submitted that when late Sh. Hoshiara became major, he along with co-sharers jointly cultivated the joint estate left behind by their predecessors and he with the help of his mother and maternal uncles used to get the 3 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 proceeds arising out of the aforesaid land. It has also been submitted that after the death of Sh. Hoshiara, his descendents used to get their share of the proceeds and profits without interference from the private respondents, who are descendents of late Sh. Bashi Ram. It has been submitted that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were not aware of the fact that late Sh. Bashi Ram had managed a fabricated revenue entry and mutation in his favour by reflecting late Sh. Hoshiara as absentee though his legal heirs were getting the usufruct of the land in question. It has been submitted that petitioner No. 1 and predecessor-in-interest of petitioners No. 2 to 5 came to know that their predecessor-in-interest late Sh. Hoshiara has been recorded as absentee/gair kabiz and in this regard mutation No. 65 was attested whereby his name as owner was deleted from the revenue record. 5. The petitioners filed a revision petition, challenging mutation order No. 65 before the court of learned Additional Commissioner (with powers of Divisional Commissioner), Jammu. It has been further submitted that vide order dated 22.05.2017, respondent No. 8-Additional Commissioner (with powers of Divisional Commissioner), Jammu condoned the delay in filing the revision petition. It has been submitted that the aforesaid order came to be challenged by the private respondents by filing a revision petition before respondent No. 4 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 1-Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K who, vide his impugned order dated 27.06.2019, set aside order dated 22.05.2017 passed by respondent No. 8-Additional Commissioner (with powers of Divisional Commissioner) Jammu by holding that the revision petition before the said authority could have been filed within a period of three years and in no case beyond the period of five years and as such, the delay could not have been condoned. 6. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 on the grounds that under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a revision petition, as such, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1-Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K deserves to be set aside. It has been further contended that even the revision petition was not maintainable because by virtue of an order dated 22.05.2017 passed by the respondent No. 8-Additional Commissioner (with powers of Divisional Commissioner), Jammu, the rights of the parties were not decided. It has further been contended that as per the binding precedents delivered by this Court, once it is shown that mutation order has been passed at the back of a party, the delay in filing the revision petition has to be condoned. 7. The private respondents No. 2 to 7 have filed their reply to the petition in which it has been submitted that late Sh. Hoshiara, 5 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had left village Chak Banota prior to 1952 Bikrami and he had settled at village Galali, Tehsil Reasi as a result of which he was shown as gair hazir in mutation No. 3 attested on 16 Mager 1958 Bikrami. It has been further submitted that even in mutation No. 64 attested on 1 Mager 1977 Bikrami, late Sh. Hoshiara has been shown as gair hazir and gair kabiz. According to the private respondents, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners never inherited the estate of deceased Hoshiara and vide mutation No. 65 attested on 5 Bhadoun 1978 Bikrami, the ownership rights of late Sh. Hoshiara were relinquished by the Tehsildar concerned on that ground that late Sh. Hoshiara had left the village prior to 1952 Bikrami and settled at village Galali, Tehsil Reasi. It has been submitted that one year time was given to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners to get the possession of land of his share back from the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents and it was further provided that in default all his rights will be relinquished in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents. 8. It is the further stand of the private respondents that at the time of settlement in 1979-80 Bikrami, which was conducted about 97 years back in village Chak Banotra Tehsil Jammu, the claim of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has not 6 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 been recorded because he had left the village prior to 1952 Bikrami and reference of successive mutations including mutation No. 65 have been reflected in the RoR of 1979-80. 9. It has been further submitted that on 18 Sawan 1981 Bikrami, late Sh. Hoshiara filed a suit for possession against the predecessor-in-interest of private respondents in the court of learned Sub-Judge, Jammu with respect to the land in question and during the pendency of the suit, the matter was settled in terms whereof late Sh. Hoshiara, after receiving Rs. 225/- from the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents relinquished his interest in favour of predecessor- in-interest of the private respondents. Accordingly, a decree was passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Jammu on 28 Mager 1987 Bikrami. It has been submitted that predecessors-in- interest of the private respondents have been successively recorded in the ownership and possession of the land in question in the Jamabandi of 1966-67 and in record of rights for the year 2013-14 as also in the khasra girdawaris of village Chak Banotra. 10. It has been further submitted that on 01.12.2015, petitioner No. 1 and predecessor-in-interest of petitioners No. 2 to 5 filed a suit for declaration under section 32 of the Land Revenue Act for making correction in the record of rights for the year 2013-14 before the court of Deputy Commissioner (Collector), 7 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 Jammu with respect to same land against the private respondents but the said suit was dismissed on 01.04.2017. It has been submitted that the petitioners filed a revision petition against mutation No. 65 attested on 5th Bhadoun 1978 Bikrami i.e., after 97 years before the court of learned Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and alongwith the revision petition, they filed an application for condonation of delay and respondent No. 8, vide order dated 22.05.2017, condoned the delay of 97 years without assigning any cogent reasons. This prompted the private respondents to file a revision petition before respondent No. 1 who, vide impugned order dated 27.06.2019, has set aside the order passed by respondent No. 8 on 22.05.2017. 11. It is the contention of the private respondents that the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest had all along knowledge about the attestation of mutation No. 65 as also the position reflected in the revenue record for the last about 100 years but still then they did not choose to file revision petition against mutation order No. 65, therefore, there was no occasion for respondent No. 8 to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 8 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 13. The question that has arisen for determination in this case is as to whether there is any justification for condoning the delay of about 97 years in assailing the mutation No. 65 attested in the year 1976 Bikrami pertaining to village Chak Banotra. Before determining this question, it has to be ascertained as to whether any limitation period has been prescribed for filing a revision petition in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act. 14. Section 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act provides limitation for appeals, revisions and reviews. It reads as under: 12. Limitation for appeals, revisions and reviews. (1)Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the period of limitation of an appeal under the last foregoing section shall be as follow:- (a) When the appeal lies to the Collector or an Assistant Collector of the first class 60 days (b) When the appeal lies to the Financial Commissioner or Divisional Commissioner 90 days Provided that in the Districts of Ladakh and Gilgil twice the ordinary period of limitation for appeals under this section shall be allowed. (2)Such provision of the limitation Act as apply to appeals, applications for revision and review in civil suits shall also apply to appeals, applications for revision and review under this Act. 9 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 15. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, particularly sub-section (2) thereof, it comes to the fore that provisions of Limitation Act as apply to appeals, applications for revision and review in civil suits shall also apply to appeals, applications for revision and review under this Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act. Thus, the limitation period provided for filing a revision petition against an order of the civil court would govern the period of limitation for filing a revision petition under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Wali Mohammad Magrey & Anr Vs. Ali Mohammad Gujree & Ors”, LPA (OW) No. 29/2018 decided on 20.12.2021. In the said case, the Division Bench, after noticing the provisions contained in Sections 12 and 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, observed as under: “It be seen that whereas Sub-section (1) of Section 15, providing for power to revise orders, uses the phrase „at any time‟, meaning at any time, without reference to limitation, Sub-section (2) of Section 12 provides that such provisions of Limitation Act as apply to applications for revision etc. in civil suits shall also apply to revisions etc. under the said Act. Obviously, Sub-section (1) refers to the suo moto exercise of power of revision by the Financial Commissioner and Subsection (2) of Section 12 refers to the revisions initiated under Section 15 of the Act at the instance of an aggrieved party. The provision of the law in Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Land Revenue Act, thus, expressly, clearly and unambiguously provides limitation period for revision 10 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 applications under the Act, as being the same as provided for revisions under the Limitation Act in civil suits. The plea or the contention that the law of limitation is not attracted to the revision applications under the Land Revenue Act does not hold good. The judgments cited at the Bar and relied upon by Mr. M. A. Qayoom are either not attracted or are distinguishable on facts.” 16. From the foregoing analysis of legal position on the subject, it is clear that limitation period for filing revision petition against an order passed by a revenue officer would be the same as the limitation period for filing a revision petition against an order passed in a civil suit, which is ninety days. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, while contending that no limitation period is prescribed for filing a revision petition under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in “Akhtara Vs. State of J&K & ors”, 2009 SLJ 20, “Sukhdev & Anr Vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors”, 2005 SLJ 716 and “Mst. Azizi Vs. Mst. Fata”, 2003 (II) 599. It has been contended that no period of limitation has been prescribed for exercising revisional power under Section 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act. 18. All the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the petitiners have been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in Wali 11 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 Mohammad Magrey’s case (supra) and it has been held that all these judgments do not lay down a good law. 19. The petitioners have also placed reliance upon the ratio laid down by this Court in “Jan Mohammad Vs. Revenue Minister & Ors”, 1975 KLJ 11 in which it has been held that if the legislature has not prescribed any period of limitation, the same cannot laid down by a Court. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as it was a case where provisions of Section 30 of J&K Big Landed Estates Abolition Act came up for consideration before the Court. In the said provision, no limitation period is prescribed for filing a revision petition. In the present case, there is no manner of doubt that under Section 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, the period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision petition against an order passed by a revenue officer has been laid down as the period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision petition in a civil suit. 20. That takes us to the issue whether the petitioners had, while filing revision petition against mutation order No. 65 after about 97 years of its passing, explained the delay in filing the revision petition. If we have a look at the reasons assigned by the petitioners for seeking condonation of delay in filing revision petition before respondent No. 8, it has been pleaded 12 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 that the mutation in question was attested without the knowledge of their predecessor-in-interest late Sh. Hoshiara and that they had attained knowledge only some time back about the said mutation. Only on this submission of the petitioners, respondent No. 8 has condoned the delay. Merely a statement that the petitioner had gathered knowledge of mutation No. 65 after 97 years of its existence cannot be a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Least the petitioners were expected to do was to establish in accordance with law as to on what date they came to know about the said mutation order and in what manner they gained knowledge about it. Mere bald assertion that the petitioners had come to know about mutation No. 65 recently would not be sufficient for condoning delay much less a huge delay of 97 years. 21. As against this, we have on record the material to show that the petitioners as well as their predecessor-in-interest were fully aware of the fact that mutation No. 65 by virtue of which late Hoshiara was excluded from the revenue record relating to the land in question was well within their knowledge. Late Hoshiara during his life time had filed a suit for possession of the land in question against the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents before the court of learned Sub Judge, Jammu on 18 Sawan 1981 Bikrami in which a settlement was arrived at by virtue of which, late Sh. Hoshiara after receiving 13 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 Rs. 225/- from predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents had relinquished his claim in their favour. Not only this, the name of predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents was being consistently reflected in the record of rights relating to the land in question. It is not possible and probable that the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest were not aware about the position reflected in the record of rights for all these years. To top it all, petitioner No. 1 and predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners No. 2 to 5 filed a suit for declaration on 01.12.2015 under Section 32 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act for making correction in record of rights for the year 2013-14 before the Court of Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Jammu. 22. The aforesaid circumstances clearly show that the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest were very well knowing about the position that was being reflected in the record of rights in respect of the land in question. When this overwhelming record is pitted against mere assertion of the petitioners that they had no knowledge about the attestation of mutation No. 65 until recently, one can safely draw an inference that their plea is absolutely false and frivolous. Thus, there was no reason to condone the huge delay of 97 years in filing the revision petition. The learned appellate authority has, therefore by condoning the delay in filing the revision petition, 14 WP(C) No. 3862/2019 committed gross illegality in exercising its jurisdiction. This illegality has rightly been set right by respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned order dated 27.06.2019. 23. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 27.06.2019 passed by respondent No. 1. There is no merit in the writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 04.09.2025 Naresh/Secy. Whether order is speaking: Yes Whether order is reportable: Yes Naresh Kumar 2025.09.04 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document