HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 3038/2023 CM No. 7324/2023 Cav. No. 1920/2023 Anant Ram …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan K. Kundal, Advocate Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondents Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1 to 3 Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate for R-4 & 5 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (09.09.2025) 01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order dated 22.02.2023 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (With the Powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu, whereby appeal filed by private respondents against mutation No. 815 dated 31.10.2004 with respect to land measuring 5 kanal and 10 marla in khasra No. 535 old, 551 min (new) and land measuring 8 kanal and 15 marla in khasra No. 536 old, 559 new situated at revenue village Kalyanpur, Tehsil and District Jammu, at present Tehsil Marh, Serial No. 17 2 WP(C) No. 3038/2023 District Jammu, has been allowed and the impugned mutation (Sehat-Indraj/under Section 4 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976) has been set aside with a direction to Tehsildar, Marh to correct Khasra Girdawari entries right from Rabi 1971 till date. 02. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 03. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has primarily raised two contentions for assailing the impugned order. Firstly, that the petitioner who was respondent before the appellate forum was not served with any notice nor was he heard before passing the impugned order. Secondly, it has been contended that the appeal against the impugned mutation order was filed by the private respondents/appellants after a lapse of about nineteen-(19) years and without assigning any reason for condoning the delay, the appellate authority has decided the appeal on its merits which is impermissible in law. 04. A perusal of the record of the appellate authority would reveal that notice in respect of the petitioner who happened to be the respondent before the appellate authority has been published in a newspaper. The minutes of proceedings of the appellate authority would 3 WP(C) No. 3038/2023 reveal that no efforts were made by the said authority for effecting service upon the petitioner by ordinary mode. 05. It was not open to the appellate authority to directly resort to substituted mode of service without first satisfying itself that it was not possible to serve notice upon the petitioner in the ordinary manner. In the absence of recording any satisfaction to the aforesaid effect and in the absence of making any effort to serve the petitioner in ordinary mode, the service of petitioner through substituted mode cannot be termed as proper. On this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned appellate authority deserves to be set aside. 06. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (With the Powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the said authority for deciding the appeal afresh after hearing the parties. 07. The appellate authority shall also consider the objection of the petitioner with regard to the limitation and only after deciding the said objection it shall proceed further to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with law. 4 WP(C) No. 3038/2023 08. The contesting parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 30.09.2025. The appellate authority shall make every endeavour to decide the appeal most expeditiously having regard to the age of the case. 09. Disposed of, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 09.09.2025 SUNIL Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : No